Sitting of 18 February 1830

MINUTES.
Mr. BROUGHAM took the oaths and his seat as Member for Knaresborough.—Mr. STANLEY brought in a Bill to amend the Laws respecting the leasing powers of Bishops and Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland.—Mr. R. GRANT gave notice that on Monday next he would submit to the House a Motion for removing the Civil Disabilities of the Jews.

BURNING OF HINDOO WIDOWS.
Mr. Protheroein presenting a Petition from the ladies and female inhabitants of Worcester, praying that effectual stop should be put to the burning of Hindoo Widows. He begged leave to ask, for the satisfaction of those who had intrusted him with this Petition, and of other persons who took an interest in the subject, whether the report which had gone abroad, that the Indian Government intended to abolish the practice of burning Hindoo widows, was correct?
Mr. G. Bankessaid, he would be happy to give the hon. Gentleman and his friends every satisfaction in his power. He had, a few nights ago, laid a paper on the Table relative to this subject; and a Report relative to it would also be speedily laid before the House. The statement in the newspapers respecting an order of the Governor-general forbidding the practice was not confirmed by any official document that had come home. But there was great reason to believe, from the information of individuals, to whom the sentiments of the people of India were known, that a considerable change had taken place in their feelings; and that, at no great distance of time, the practice would be abolished. But no step should be taken that would offend the religious prejudices of the natives. Nothing would be done by the Government in haste; but they most seriously wished that the object of the Petitioners might be carried into effect.

SUB-LETTING ACT IN IRELAND.
Mr. O'Connellin presenting a Petition from several parishes in Dublin against

645
the Sub-letting Act, said, that the population of Ireland was not a demoralized population. On the contrary, it was the most moral population in Europe. He instanced the last Commission for the City and County of Dublin, when only eleven persons were tried for felony, and the last Quarter Session for the County of Dublin, when not one person was so tried.

LABOURERS' WAGES.—TRUCK SYSTEM.
Sir J. Wrottesley, in rising to present a Petition from a number of workmen employed at Bilston, in Staffordshire, against the practice of paying Labourers' Wages by goods, begged pardon of the House for the formal manner in which he was about to bring it forward. But the subject to which it related bore so strongly on the poor, that he felt himself bound to ask permission of the House to state it fully, and he trusted that Gentlemen would listen for a few moments to the observations he intended to make. The practice to which the Petition referred was one to which his own observation had been directed; but, in speaking of it, he would not confine himself to facts which came within his own knowledge; he would quote the principal points contained in the Petition which he had the honour to offer to the House. The Petitioners stated that the town of Bilston was connected with very large collieries and iron-works, for which very great rents were paid. They said, that a numerous body of men were employed there, who were chiefly paid in goods by their masters. They next stated, that if a workman sought for redress, he was immediately discharged. They complained that the masters resorted to various expedients to evade the law: they delayed to settle with the men sometimes for six weeks; and when the latter, in want of sustenance, applied to the masters, they supplied them with goods, thirty per cent above the market price. Other masters, they alleged, paid the workmen in money in one counting-house, with which they were obliged to purchase goods, the property of their employers, in another. They state, that as many months elapsed before the masters paid the bills which the workmen were compelled to run up with the shopkeeper, the latter forced the poor workmen to pay exorbitant prices. Under these circumstances, they called on the House to amend the law, in order to put an end to this ruinous prac-
646
tice. He begged leave to state, in confirmation of what the Petitioners said, that he was convinced that every allegation made by them was perfectly true, and that the picture was not exaggerated, but extenuated. Previously to 1826 this practice prevailed to a certain extent. At that time, however, the payment of wages in goods was the exception, and the payment of wages in money was the rule; but now, he was sorry to say, the case was altered —the payment of wages in goods was the rule, and the payment of wages in money was the exception. It was not in his power to state the exact cause of this; but no person could deny that it was contemporaneous with the alteration of the currency. That was a subject, he believed, not very popular, because it was treated in a manner which prevented people from understanding it. In his opinion, it ought to be divided into four different parts—first, the Bank restriction; second, the standard of value; third, the alteration of 1826; and fourth, the influence of the Bank of England on the currency of the country. He was one of those who never complained of the necessity of returning to cash payments in 1819. He believed it was indispensable, and therefore he never raised a word of objection against it. He was of opinion that the standard of value was proper, though it might appear high at 3l. 17 s. 10½d. per ounce of gold. But, though high, it was already settled, and he believed that any attempt to go back from that standard would be attended with far greater difficulties than would arise from continuing it. But he admitted that the time might come, the awful time, when the country might be obliged to make an alteration in that particular. He only contemplated that time when the nation should be so exhausted and so poor, that it would be compelled to compound with its creditors. That time, he was happy to say, was not yet come, and he hoped it was very far distant. But, the alteration of 1826 rested on entirely different grounds from that of 1819; and, in his mind, they could not allow the validity of those reasons on which the withdrawal of the 1l. notes was founded, while they suffered the existence of small bank-notes both in Ireland and Scotland. With respect to the small notes, the mischief occasioned by them was rather to be found in the abuse of the system than in the practice itself; and what system, he would ask,

647
was not liable to abuse? But how had Government proceeded? They trusted the bankers at present with the issue of 5l., 10 l., or 100 l. notes, and yet they would not trust them with the power of issuing 1l. notes. With respect to the bankers, a statement had been made which ought to have considerable weight in discussing this subject. It was proved that seventy bankers, who had stopped payment in 1826, yielded, on an average, a dividend of 17 s. 6d. in the pound. Then why were they reproached as having acted dishonestly. It had been stated, both in that House and in the House of Lords, that the business of this country had become too extensive for the Bank of England. It was said that the structure was too weighty for the basis on which it was placed. He knew that country bankers were prevented, at the present moment, from issuing paper in consequence of want of confidence in the Bank of England. Then, he said, abolish that monopoly, and form two more companies, with charters, and a limited responsibility. There never was more capital in the country than at present. Let it then be appropriated to our own use—do not let it go to foreign countries to increase the trade and industry of those who are now our rivals. He might be asked, what had this to do with the payment of labourers in goods? He would answer, that it had much to do with that subject. From the neighbourhood of the place whence that petition came, at least 1,000,000 l. of paper currency had been abstracted in the last two years; and they could not afford to replace that circulating medium by introducing 1,000,000 l. of gold. The consequence was, that they had been obliged to resort to barter. This was not confined to the large manufacturers of iron; for, such was the state of the currency in that country, that few persons would buy goods until they saw some means of paying for them without money. It appeared to him that they must repeal the measure of 1826, which would be the most efficient remedy for the distress so prevalent at present. He thought that the best termination which could be put to the disputes between the masters and the men would be to enable the labourer to choose his own master. He did not despond, bad as was the state of the country, and few persons had better opportunities of ascertaining its situation than he had. If this system of barter were
648
continued, the terms should be obligatory on the parties. Something like a fixed rule should be established between the master and the man; because, if the former stipulated to pay in goods, and the price and quality of the article were not defined, there would be no means of judging what was the nature of the contract between the parties. His hon. friend and colleague had given notice of his intention to introduce a Bill on this subject. He should have his best assistance; but he was not blind to the difficulties which stood in the way; and he trusted that Parliament would not sanction any measure of this nature without great caution.
On the Motion that it do lie on the Table,
Mr. Herriesremarked, that as he and some of his right hon. friends had lately had some communication on the subject with those who were personally interested in it, he felt that it would not be right to allow the petition to be laid on the Table without making a few observations. He would, however, entirely disconnect the question to which the petition referred from the subject of the currency, with which the hon. Baronet had endeavoured, very ingeniously, but not quite satisfactorily, to connect it. In his opinion, the object which the Petitioners had in view would be better promoted by discussing the matter without reference to any other topic than the grievance complained of. Of the difficulties which would attend the removal of that grievance without an interference between the employers and the persons employed; of the difficulties which would attend the application of an adequate remedy without the danger of injuriously increasing on the manufacturer and the capitalist the price of labour —of these considerations, which were of such vital importance, it would not be proper for him, on that occasion, to attempt to enter; the more especially as the hon. Member for Staffordshire had given notice that it was his intention, at a very early period, to move for leave to bring in a Bill, by which it was hoped that the evils now complained of might be remedied. Under these circumstances it would be worse than idle to anticipate the discussions to which the introduction of that measure would naturally give rise. But, as the subject had been mentioned elsewhere, he would merely observe that his Majesty's Government had expressed

649
to those who were deeply interested in the subject their perfect disposition to inquire into it, without, however, pledging themselves to the adoption of any ulterior measure. He would not go into the other question which the hon. Baronet had so unsatisfactorily connected with the present. His reason was, that the currency was a question which ought to be discussed not incidentally, but on a due notice given. The state of the currency, however, had no connection with the grievance complained of in the petition. That grievance had been complained of, and measures adopted for its removal at periods when no question existed as to the state of the currency. It had been complained of even so far back as in the reign of Edward 4th. It had been the subject of several Acts in the latter part of the reign of George 3rd; and it had been complained of in that year of supposed prosperity, 1825.
Mr. R. Gordonprotested against the inference attempted to be established by the right hon. Gentleman, that the question of Barter had nothing to do with the currency. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, and others of his Majesty's Ministers, were so ignorant of the true state of the country, as to suppose that the system of Truck was to be considered apart from the question of the currency.
Mr. Littletondoubted the policy or expediency of connecting the subject of the petition with the currency. It was his intention to bring the question before the House on Thursday, when he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to render more effectual the laws for the payment of wages in money.
Mr. Benettcontended, that the system of Truck was immediately connected with the currency. As matters stood at present, no manufacturer could continue to carry on business without obtaining a double profit, first as a manufacturer, and next as a huxter. He sincerely hoped that the hon. Member for Staffordshire might find it possible to carry his meritorious measure into effect.
Mr. Bensontrusted, that the measure relative to the payment of wages in money would receive due consideration from Government and the House.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, the hon. Member for Staffordshire would be a public benefactor if he could put an end to the system Of Truck, which was similar to the practice
650
prevalent in South America under the title of repartimiento.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, he found it quite impossible to disconnect the subject of the Petition from that of the Currency.

LAW REFORMS.
Mr. Secretary Peelrose to make the Motion of which he had given notice respecting the Reform of the Courts of Law. Before he proceeded, he begged that so much of the Royal Speech at the opening of the Session as related to the measures for the improvements of the Courts of Law might be now read.
The Clerk of the House then read as follows:—"His Majesty commands us to acquaint you that his attention has been of late earnestly directed to various important considerations connected with improvements in the general Administration of the Law. His Majesty has directed that measures shall be submitted for your deliberation of which some are calculated, in the opinion of his Majesty, to facilitate and expedite the course of Justice in different parts of the United Kingdom; and others appear to be necessary preliminaries to a revision of the practice and proceedings of the Superior Courts. We are commanded to assure you that his Majesty feels confident that you will give your best attention and assistance to subjects of such deep and lasting concern to the well-being of his people." The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to say, that in moving, pursuant to notice, for leave to bring in a Bill for ascertaining the Fees and Emoluments of Officers in the Courts of Common Law, he thought it might be convenient and advantageous to the House that, at an early period of the Session, he should avail himself of an opportunity of presenting to it a general outline of the measures connected with the improvements in the Administration of the Law referred to in his Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the present Session. He was quite aware that each of these measures would require a separate and deliberate consideration, but still he considered it of importance, that previously to entering upon the separate consideration of each of them, the House should be in possession of the views and objects of his Majesty's Government in a connected form, for the purpose of enabling it to form a judgment with respect to the

651
general scope and tendency of the proposed measures. He was convinced that his Majesty's confidence in the House, (which he had graciously expressed in his Speech from the Throne), and his reliance upon the disposition of the House to lend every attention and assistance in the progress of these measures, had not been misplaced, and would not be disappointed. He was himself confident, whatever shades of difference might exist in the opinions entertained by Members of that House upon political questions, however different their views as to the precise extent of the distress mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and which was unfortunately more or less prevalent throughout the country—whatever difference might exist on the subject of our foreign or domestic policy, he was confident, however, the attention of the House might be occasionally occupied with these considerations, that hon. Members would not be so exclusively engaged in them as to allow such matters to withdraw their attention from the perhaps less interesting und animating discussion of legal improvements, which were, however, far from being of slight consequence to the permanent welfare of the country. He alluded to the intended measures for the improvement of the general Administration of Justice. He felt confident that Members would indulge him and favour him with their attention while he stated the general outline of these measures. He had no doubt that they would make allowances for his want of professional education and professional experience, a circumstance that might render some of his explanations less intelligible than they would otherwise be upon such a subject. He was also satisfied that the House would take into account the necessary occupation of his time in other matters, which the peculiar duties of his office rendered still more pressing than the present subject, (important as it was) and that they would overlook any errors or oversights which he might commit. The technical details of the subject he left to the discussion of others who were better qualified than he was, by their habits and education, to deal with them; but he considered it to be a part of his duty to present to the House, in a popular form, the great and general principles of the improvements to be proposed, so as to render them intelligible to others who, like himself, did not
652
possess the advantage of professional knowledge and experience. The House was aware that, some short time since, his Majesty, in compliance with an Address of the House, had appointed two Commissions of Inquiry—the one for the purpose of inquiring into the practice and proceedings of the superior Courts of Common Law—the other to inquire into the state of the law relative to real property. He must give credit to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite for a great share in the appointment of those commissions which he had suggested in the able, learned, and comprehensive speech delivered by him in the Session before last, upon the subject of Legal Reforms. Though there was a qualification of the proposal with which that speech concluded in the course subsequently taken, it was apparent that the object of the speech was the appointment of Commissions of inquiry into the state of the law, with a view to its improvement. The House was aware that reports had been made by each of those Commissions, which in each case did the highest credit to the views of the Gentlemen who composed them, and to the mode in which they proceeded to fulfil their duties and accomplish the intentions for which they had been appointed. With respect to the report of the Common Law Commissioners, it embraced several matters of the highest importance to the due administration of Justice and to the despatch of business in the Superior Courts of Common Law, and the increased activity of those Courts. The second report of the Common Law Commissioners would be presented to his Majesty in a few days. It was a report embracing objects of much higher consideration and importance than the first. From the communications he had had with the Commissioners of Inquiry into the practice of the Common Law he could inform the House, that the second report, which he trusted shortly to have it in his power to lay before the House, would embrace—First, the expediency of investing the Superior Courts with new powers of a summary and equitable kind, calculated to economise time and money in legal proceedings, and prevent the too frequent resort to the aid of Courts of Equity. The second point adverted to by the Commissioners was a subject of great importance —it referred to the verification of written documents before trial. The

653
third recommendation related to compulsory arbitration in matters of accounts. The fourth to an abridgment and simplification of the obsolete and useless forms of pleading. There were also other matters introduced in the forthcoming report, which were of scarcely less importance to the due administration of the law, but he had mentioned these, deeming them of the highest consequence. The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the Law of Real Property had also made one report, and he trusted he should be able to announce at an early period the production of another in continuation of their labours upon that important subject. With respect to both Commissions, every Member, who had turned his attention to the subject, would freely and readily admit the great importance of our being enabled to consider the whole question of legal reform simultaneously and in a systematic manner. We ought not to attempt partial reforms, but endeavour to effect a general improvement in the practice and administration of the law. The whole subject of the law, the subjects of inquiry before each Commission, were so intimately connected and interwoven together, that until we were in possession of the entire views of the Commissioners in relation to them, it would be desirable to postpone partial reforms in the law, and wait till we had the whole question fairly before us. Perhaps there were parts of the system, which, under circumstances of peculiar urgency, we might venture to touch; but, generally speaking, the whole was so interwoven, the several branches of inquiry were so closely connected, and the inconvenience of partial legislation was so great, that he fully concurred with the Commissioners in deprecating the adoption of partial and isolated measures, and in waiting till we could deal with the whole subject at' once. He must advert to another Commission that had been recently appointed, not in consequence of an Address to the Crown, but directly on behalf of his Majesty; it was instituted for the purpose of inquiry into the present state of our Ecclesiastical Law, with a view to revising the proceedings had in suits in the Ecclesiastical Courts from the commencement of a suit till its close. So much for what he might call the preliminary proceedings that had been adopted for the furtherance of legal reform. He purposed, at a future period, to present
654
to the Legislature the views and opinions of the Commissioners—the results of the inquiries of those intelligent, disinterested, and dispassionate men, on the subject of the Superior Courts—of the Laws of Real Property—and of the practice and proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts. The immediate object of the Bill which he was then about to ask leave to introduce was, to facilitate the future promotion of legal improvement—to lay the ground-work of reform in the practice and proceedings of our Courts. Its principle would be to regulate the appropriation of fees now received by individuals holding patent offices for life, or a specific term of years. His experience of legal reforms had satisfied him that the existence of patent offices formed one of the greatest obstacles to improvements in the law. It therefore became absolutely necessary to look at the whole question, and devise a measure by means of which the establishment of vested interests in Courts of Justice should be brought to an end. In almost every attempt to introduce partial reforms in the law, we were met by vested interests, which impeded our operations. The usual course in such cases was to provide the means of compensation for the holders of patent offices; having enacted the abolition of their fees, we ascertained their value, and gave the parties a claim on the consolidated fund for their amount. But it frequently happened that the effect of taking away the fees of one officer in a Court was directly and materially to increase the fees receivable by another officer; and when, at a subsequent period, we came to deal with the interests of the second officer, a claim was raised for compensation, not only to the amount of the original value of the office, but to the extent of the increased profits which he had derived in consequence of the previous reform. He feared that this had been the case more particularly in Ireland, in consequence of the adoption of partial measures of reform. The public had thus been exposed to considerable inconvenience and great pecuniary loss. He was therefore for looking all at once at the whole question of vested interests, with a view to provide a mode by which, without any act of individual injustice, officers should in future hold all legal situations of a subordinate nature in dependence upon those by whom they were appointed, so as to enable Parliament to proceed to

655
legal reforms and alterations, without giving to individuals who might be affected by them a claim to compensation. The immediate object of the Bill he meant to introduce would be to provide, in the first instance, that no officer who should be appointed after an early day, to be named, should have any claim to compensation, on the ground of proceedings in Parliament to alter or amend the practice in Courts of Justice. As for existing vested interests, he proposed to provide for them in the following manner. He proposed, that Commissioners (say those already appointed, in order to save expense) should be empowered to institute inquiries to enable them to ascertain what had been the amount of fees received in a given number of years by the several patent officers in Courts of Justice, and by those possessed of vested interests in legal offices, either for life or a term of years. He would confine the inquiry to the amount of legal fees (without committing himself to matters of detail) which had been received for the last ten years, believing that to be the fairest period upon which to take an average: for if we took a shorter period—say one of seven years —the increase which took place in some species of fees in 1825, in consequence of changes then made, would swell the average beyond what it ought to be. Having ascertained the amount of legal fees accruing to the holders of patent offices within the last ten years, he proposed, in future, to have all such fees received on the public account, and that those individuals having a vested interest in the offices from which they arose should be paid respectively according to the average of their receipts for ten years. When we came to the consideration of alterations in the practice and proceedings of our law Courts, we might see whether the amount of fees now receivable might not be materially reduced in several branches of those proceedings. Still it would be open to Parliament to decide whether it would be expedient, in consideration of the fees now paid, to provide a fund sufficient for the compensation of persons who possessed vested interests in offices—that would be a subject for after consideration. At present he merely proposed that the fees in question should be received on the public account, and that they should constitute a fund for the payment of the officers in the manner sug-
656
gested. He saw no reason for imagining that such a fund would not be sufficient to discharge the claims of these individuals, estimated upon an average of ten years. In 1828 the number of causes tried in the Superior Courts considerably exceeded the average of the preceding-five years, from 1823 to 1827, both inclusive; so that there was a probability of an increase rather than a decrease of fees. The question of fees once set at rest, Parliament would be at liberty to deal with every question of legal reform in future according to its own merits, without being influenced by other considerations. He had brought in a Bill to facilitate the recovery of Small Debts, by improving the mode of process in County Courts and reducing the charges upon legal proceedings for the recovery of such debts. That was a measure which he considered one of very great importance; but it became necessary to investigate the situation of certain officers, whose interests would have been injured by the operation of the Bill, and he was afraid to provide a compensation for these parties, lest, by so doing, he should increase the profits of others, and so throw an impediment in the way of future reforms by affording such individuals grounds for claiming additional compensation upon another occasion. Among the measures which it appeared to him possible to adopt, without waiting for the period of full and final reform, was one which at a former period had excited much attention in the House, and in those parts of the country to be immediately affected by it—he alluded to the proposed abolition of the separate and local jurisdiction in Wales, and the assimilation of the jurisprudence of that country with the legal practice and proceedings of the English Courts. He was satisfied that those Gentlemen who felt most desirous of upholding the independence and dignity of Wales would enter upon this consideration calmly and dispassionately, for the purpose of discovering whether the time had not arrived when, for the accomplishment of the great object of assimilating the legal jurisdiction of the two countries, and for the interest of Wales as well as England, the English system might safely be introduced into Wales. There were four separate and independent jurisdictions in Wales, and eight Judges to administer justice, who enjoyed judicial offices, which might be held

657
in conjunction with a scat in that House, and who were further enabled to practise as barristers in this country. It was also the custom that the Welsh Judges should be attached permanently to one circuit, instead of varying the places of administering justice, as in England. He was aware that at present there was only one Welsh Judge who occupied a seat in Parliament, and he was also aware that it would be impossible to name any one who possessed more honourable or independent feelings than that Gentleman, but at the same time he thought, generally speaking, that it would tend greatly to the maintenance of the dignity of the judicial station, if our salutary, wise, and prudent distinctions between the political and judicial character were adopted with respect to the Welsh Judges. It would also be a great improvement in the jurisdiction of Wales to prevent the same Judge from going permanently and invariably the same small circuit. He had the highest degree of confidence in the honour and integrity of the Welsh Judges, but it was impossible for any gentleman to avoid forming local and personal connexions when he was in the habit of going the same circuit for several years: sure he was that such local and personal connexions would not be allowed by these gentlemen to act on their conduct or character unfavourably to the due administration of justice, but the House might depend upon it, that it was not enough that the administration of justice should be merely impartial—it was important to prevent the existence of any impression to the contrary—it was important to establish a conviction in the public mind that no personal motives could by possibility influence a Judge in the discharge of his duty. He therefore thought that it would be of the greatest advantage to Wales, and to the general administration of justice throughout the country, that the judicial institutions of Wales should be placed upon the same footing as those of England [hear.] Heretofore there was a question whether the legal proceedings of Wales were not more economical in some respects than ours. Doubts had been entertained on the subject; and it was said that there existed in Wales a form of action more economical than existed in this country. If there were, we could have no difficulty in adopting it [hear], provided the change seemed advantageous. If there were any process, by which, following the
658
example of Wales, we could expedite and cheapen justice, there could not be a fitter consideration than that relative to its adoption—we need not deprive Wales of any advantages which she enjoyed at present, at the same time that we conferred additional benefits upon her. The whole object of the Law Commissioners was to curtail every merely formal proceeding, every practice which was obsolete, antiquated and purely technical, and not necessary to the right administration of justice. The extension of similar advantages to Wales would hardly be objected to. There was another point to which he wished to refer: on account of the present augmented state of business in the Courts of Common Law, it was his decided opinion (adopted upon considerations wholly apart from the situation of Wales), that it was necessary to add to the number of Judges in the Superior Courts, with a view to prevent the continuance of the present arrear of business. The Commissioners proposed not to add to the number of Judges who sat together in banco in each Court, the present number of four appearing to afford great advantages over every other number that could be adopted; because, in a court where the majority was to decide, there could be no better majority than that of three to one. They had also considered the inconvenience which would result from multiplying the number of the Judges in the same tribunal, and it was not their wish to make the number of Judges five. In proposing, therefore, to add one Judge, they did not intend to add to the number sitting in banco, but to make him sit as a Judge by himself, who should preside over the trial of such matters as might be committed to one Judge. But if, on grounds apart from the administration of justice in Wales, an addition was made to the Judges, the House would be in a condition to consider whether, when a part of the Judges were unoccupied, the eight Welsh Judges should be retained. To retain both would be to entail a great expense upon the country, on the supposition that the increased number of Judges could perform the Welsh business. These two considerations, therefore, must be combined. If it could be shown that the Judges could perform the Welsh business, then, no doubt, considerations of economy were in favour of such an arrangement. The salaries of the eight Welsh Judges were 9,800 l. Looking towards the assi-

659
milation of the jurisprudence of Wales to that of England, in the last appointments to Welsh judgeships, it had been notified to the individuals nominated, that they would have no claim to compensation in the event of the Legislature revising or abolishing the offices they held. By this means there would be an ultimate saving of 9,800 l. a year to the country, and, to Wales, an ultimate saving of the four separate judicial establishments attached to each circuit. The saving thus effected would very nearly provide for the salaries of the new Judges who would be appointed, if the House should agree to the proposition which would be made on that subject. Again, in that spirit of economy in which he trusted the House would give the Ministry the credit of looking at this, as well as at every other subject that came before them, they had adverted to the act by which the salaries of the Judges had been raised to 5,500 l. They had taken into their consideration the objections which had been urged against that statute, considering that it was perfectly open to public men to review and to reconsider any measure, whatever part they might have taken in it. The result of their consideration was this—that a salary of 5,000 l. for all Judges hereafter to be appointed would be quite enough to provide for the maintenance of the dignity of the office, and apportion the salary to the retiring allowance. It was the intention of his Majesty's Government therefore to bring in a Bill which would fix the salaries in future at 5,000 l. a-year. He mentioned this circumstance only for the purpose of showing that there was no unwillingness on the part of the Government to assign due weight to all practicable propositions for reduction. And now, as he was upon the subject of the administration of justice, he might, perhaps, be allowed to avail himself of the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a matter which was not immediately connected with the Bill which he was then moving for leave to bring in. With the permission of the House he would state the amendments which it was proposed to make in the Criminal Law. This subject had now for some years occupied the attention of the House. In 1825, an Act passed, the object of which was to consolidate the laws relating to criminal offences. This Act, among other things, removed many technical difficulties, re-
660
gulated the expense of prosecutions, as well as rewards for the apprehension of offenders, and it regulated the proceedings in estreating recognizances. This was followed by four other Acts. The first abolished what was called "benefit of clergy," and certain other forms, and provided that a pardon under the sign-manual should have the same effect as a pardon under the Great Seal. The next consolidated the laws relating to burglaries, to embezzlement, and to other criminal acts against property. The third consolidated and amended the Acts relating to malicious injuries to property, and regulated actions brought against the hundred. The fourth related to offences against the person. Thus considerable progress was made in the amendment of our criminal jurisprudence. By the Acts which he had introduced, he had the satisfaction of stating, that no less than two hundred and seventy-eight Acts had been repealed, and that all the provisions of these two hundred and seventy-eight Acts worth retaining had been included in eight Acts. He thought he might say that, practically, no inconvenience had resulted from the repeal of these two hundred and seventy-eight Acts, and the substitution of the eight in their place. In the present Session he hoped, with the assistance of his right hon. friend, the Master of the Mint, to introduce a Bill which would consolidate and amend the laws relating to the Coin of the realm, in which it was his intention to propose the removal of the penalties of high treason from the offence of coining. He should also introduce a Bill consolidating and amending the laws relative to the office of Justice of the Peace; and a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to Forgery. If these Bills should meet with the approbation of the Legislature, and pass into laws, he thought that he should not be overrating the progress that had been made in the amendment of our jurisprudence, when he said that nine-tenths of the cases which came before the Courts would have been brought within the laws consolidated since 1825. There was only one other subject to which he was anxious to call the attention of the House. It related to another part of the kingdom. The House would recollect that, in the last Session of Parliament, a measure was proposed which had for its object to increase the salaries of the Scotch Judges.

661
At that time it was impossible not to perceive that it was the general wish of the House that the consideration of the subject should be postponed. There appeared to be an impression that other measures relative to the jurisprudence of Scotland were called for; that such measures ought to be speedily brought forward, and that they should be disposed of before any steps were taken to increase the Salaries of the Judges in Scotland. Since the period at which that debate had taken place, much of the time and attention of the Government had been devoted to a general review of the Scotch jurisprudence; and he trusted that he—or, he should rather say, his learned friend, the Lord Advocate—would be able, in the present Session, to propose measures which would materially improve the administration of justice in that country. It was their opinion, an opinion which had met with the concurrence of the highest legal authorities, that the time was now arrived at which the Jury Courts should be abolished, and trial by jury, in Civil cases, transferred to the Court of Session. In proposing the transfer of Jury Trials to the Court of Session, the object was to facilitate the adoption, and to secure the maintenance of trial by jury. The time must come at which trial by jury must be ingrafted on the administration of justice in Scotland, and, in their opinion, the present was the best time. The jury system had been tried now for fifteen years in that country, under the Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, and, so far as he could form an opinion on the subject, he thought that great advantages had resulted to Scotland from that mode of trial. On the abolition of the Jury Court, the present Chief Commissioner would be entitled to a large proportion of his salary, as a retiring pension; and they proposed, therefore, to retain his services, by transferring him to the Court of Session, to give his assistance in Civil trials. The next alteration they proposed to make was, to abolish the separate jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in Scotland. They proposed to transfer to the Court of Session all the Civil part, and to the Justiciary Court all the Criminal part of the jurisdiction at present exercised by the Admiralty Court. They thought that the Sheriffs might perform all the duties of the Admiralty
662
Court, and that by these arrangements no inconvenience could possibly result from the abolition of this Court. They also proposed to alter the Consistorial Court. The proposition was, to reduce the number of Judges in that Court from four to one, and to send the original jurisdiction, now exercised by that Court, in cases of legitimacy, marriage, and divorce, to the Court of Session. By these alterations in the Admiralty Court and the Consistorial Court, it would be seen that the business of the Court of Session must be considerably increased. In the Court of Exchequer, too, alterations would be proposed. They should propose that the number of Barons in that Court be reduced by two. They thought it in the highest degree desirable to retain that Court, not only in conformity with the articles of the Union, but in consequence of its acknowledged utility; but, at the same time, they were of opinion that two Judges, instead of four, would be quite sufficient to transact the business of the Court. From these reductions it would be seen, that ultimately a very considerable saving would be effected, and yet he hoped that the reductions would not stop at this point. Notwithstanding the vast increase of business which would be thrown upon the Court of Session, in consequence of these alterations, he hoped—but he would not pledge himself on this point— he hoped that they should be able to effect a reduction in the number of the Judges of this Court. He hoped that they should be able to reduce the number of the Lords of Ordinary from seven to five. He trusted, therefore, that in consequence of these reforms and reductions, the House would not oppose the proposal for an increase in the salaries of the Scotch Judges, since he apprehended that the effect of the meditated alterations would be a saving to the country of many thousand pounds. He must also add, that he trusted he should be enabled to reduce the number of principal clerks in the Court of Session by two. He believed that he had now presented to the House in a general manner all the subjects which at a future period would be submitted to them in detail. He had purposely abstained from entering into detail on the present occasion. Avoiding all technical expressions, he had endeavoured to offer a popular view of these matters, and to give such an outline of the proposed

663
alterations as would be intelligible to those who had not had a professional education. The time would of course come at which all the proposed measures must be discussed separately and in detail. He trusted he had said enough to show that the Government had considered these subjects solely with a view of making the administration of justice equal, impartial, expeditious, and as little expensive as possible. [hear] Whatever might be our attachment to the free institutions of the country, sure he was, that there was no part of those institutions more intimately connected with the comfort and happiness of Englishmen than that which enabled individuals to protect the rights which belonged to them, and to obtain redress for the infliction of wrongs. The earnest desire of the Government was to secure comfort and happiness to individuals, and prosperity to the country; and when they approached the administration of justice in the country, with the view of amending it, he thought they could not give greater evidence of the sincerity of that desire, than by making justice as cheap and as expeditious as possible. He had now only to move "for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating the Payment of Fees to Officers in the Superior Courts of Common Law."
Mr. Broughamexpressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and agreed that the present was not the fit opportunity for discussing in detail the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded. He thought it right that the proceedings should commence by such a Motion as the right hon. Gentleman had just made, because the evil of fees was at the root. In many instances, the cutting down of the emoluments of larger offices had been attended by this consequence, namely, throwing inordinate increase into the emoluments of lower offices. In this way, some of the very reforms, which had had reduction for their object had in reality produced increased salaries. With respect to the other parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, if he should have occasion to differ from him on a future occasion, it would only be, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman did not go far enough. As to the Welsh jurisdiction, when the time was come it must be put an end to. To the abolition of it there were two objections—the first was, that
664
there would be an increase of expense; the second was that there were some peculiar advantages in the system. Now, to the first the answer was ready. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the salaries of the Puisne Judges by 500 l. a year. This reduction, there being nine Puisne Judges, would amount to 4,500 l. Add to this the salaries of the Welsh Judges, namely 9,800 l., and they would have ultimately a saving of 14,300 l. a year, exclusive of what would be saved in the salaries of clerks, prothonotaries, and so forth. He thought therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had completely met this objection. The other objection was answered without difficulty. If there were, which he must be allowed to doubt, any peculiar advantages attaching to the Welsh system, there could be no reason why Wales should have the monopoly of them. Let them be extended to the whole country, and Wales would have no reason to complain. Thus much, if such advantages did really appertain to the Welsh system; if there existed no such advantages, there was an end of the question; and in either case, therefore the second objection fell to the ground. But there was one light in which it was very important that this question should be viewed. Pf they abolished the eight Welsh Judges, and substituted for them two or three Puisne Judges, see the vast difference in point of patronage. Did the Government receive equal patronage for that with which they parted? Was the appointment of two or three Puisne Judges equal to the giving away eight places to persons who might be, and some of whom were, Members of Parliament, but who, above all, might be chosen for qualities other than those which fitted men for the bench? In the appointment of the Judges of Westminster-hall, he had never had any fear of the Ministry; no, not even those Ministers upon whom he had looked with the most deeply-rooted distrust; because he did not believe that any Minister would dare to face in Parliament the representatives of a watchful people, after having jobbed in the appointment of Judges. He would not, however, say so much of the appointment of Welsh Judges, for to such appointments the eyes of the country were not directed in the same way, and Welsh Judges, therefore, might be ill-selected, and improperly chosen. He thought, therefore, that this patronage was dangerous in the extreme.

665
In Westminster-hall, the men who were Judges must be such as the community and the profession pronounced to be fit for the office; but a Welsh Judge might be a man of whom neither the profession nor the community knew any thing, and who might be indebted for his promotion to family connexions, or to something else rather than the qualities which fitted men for the bench. This, then, he repeated, was a dangerous though a valuable patronage. Moreover, it tended more or less to diminish the independence of the bar. Men there were in Westminster-hall who, in the hope or expectation of a Welsh judgeship, were led, not to the expression of opinions which they did not hold, but to the suppression of opinions which they did hold. For the purity, therefore, of the administration of justice, for the sake of the independence of that class of men out of which the Judges must come, and for political reasons of no small importance, he could not help regarding this subject as one of the highest concern. The next point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that which related to Scotland. He could not help thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the reductions he proposed, though, in his opinion, they might be carried further. When the comparatively small bar of Scotland was compared with that of England, and when the amount of the legal business of the two countries was contrasted, was it not strange that Scotland should have twenty, and England only twelve Judges? The necessary consequence of such a system was, that the salary of a Judge in Scotland was less than an advocate in extensive practice could afford to take. If the House were of the same opinion, the obvious course would be to reduce the number of Judges, and to make the salary of those that remained such as would induce persons of skill and reputation to take upon them the judicial office. He thought, that by the reduction proposed, and the consequent saving to the country, the right hon. Gentleman had made out a very strong case for the increase of the Judges' salaries. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that every possible means should be taken to uphold the trial by jury in Scotland. For this purpose, nothing could be of greater importance than to consider the constitution of the Courts. He meant to impute nothing to the
666
Judges, nor, indeed, to any one else, when he said that they had come but slowly in to the institution of trial by jury in Scotland. From this fact, however, it became the more necessary to support the system with a firm and steady hand. If trial by jury had nothing else to recommend it, but the expense it saved by shortening the proceedings, it would still be of the utmost importance to the people. While he was on this subject, he could not help expressing a hope, that one great impediment to the extension of trial by jury in Scotland would be taken into consideration. Every body knew that the rules of evidence acted upon in Jury Courts were at variance with the practice of Scotch Advocates. Hitherto, the evil resulting from the circumstance had not been felt in the Jury Court in Scotland, and for this reason, namely, that in the Chief Commissioner were united the Scotch Advocate and the English Barrister. The nomination of Judges was restricted to the Scotch bar, but his hon. and learned friend to whom he had alluded happened to be a Scotch Advocate as well as an English Barrister. His hon. and learned friend, therefore, carried with him the necessary qualification, and to this he added his own experience in the Jury Courts of this country. Should the office of his learned friend, however, by resignation, or some other cause, become vacant, in that case they must have, as Judge, a Scotch Advocate who might never have witnessed a trial by jury in his life, except now and then during the few years that trial by jury had existed in that country. Surely this was not a desirable occurrence. He could not help thinking that nothing would go farther toward extending trial by jury in Scotland than the assistance of some English Barristers, who, thoroughly versed in the rules of evidence, and in the practice of our Jury Courts, would open their minds to the manners, the habits, and the usages of the people of Scotland. In a word, he thought it would be extremely advantageous to remove the restriction which now confined the nomination of Judges to the Scotch bar. In the Scotch Court of Exchequer that restriction did not exist; but although all the Judges of that Court might have been English, it had happened that since the Union, there had never been more than one of them appointed from the bar of this country, the others had been

667
taken from the Scotch bar. Now since the Government had voluntarily restricted their power of appointment to one, though they might have appointed four from the English bar, he could not but think it would give rise to no complaint, while he was quite sure it would be attended with great benefit to Scotland, if one of the Judges of the Jury Courts were always taken from the English bar. As to the projected changes in Westminster-hall, the House could not, as the right hon. Gentleman had very justly observed, enter upon the discussion of them at that time. He might, however, generally state, once for all, his views on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman greatly deceived himself if he expected that by adding one Judge to each of the Courts in Westminster-hall, by throwing open all the Courts—by destroying the monopoly of barristers in the one, and of attornies in the other—by allowing all kinds of business to originate indifferently in all the three Courts—nay, even if the right hon. Gentleman could make the bar in each Court, the attornies in each Court, and the Judges in each Court of equal ability, which was of course impossible, but even if the right hon. Gentleman could do all this in addition to what he proposed to do, the right hon. Gentleman would still greatly deceive himself if he supposed that, without some compulsion, he could equalize the business of the Courts; and for this plain reason—the Court of King's Bench was in possession of the business; it was the favourite Court; the suitors would betake themselves to that Court, and because they did so, the Court contained the best practitioners, while, for the same reason, it usually had the best Judges.—He did not mean to say that the difference between the business of the Courts would continue, under the new arrangements, so great as it was at present; but he contended that the business would not be any thing like equalized if the suitors were left to themselves. The House probably was not aware of the increase which had taken place in the business of the Court of King's Bench. Notwithstanding the difficulty of getting through the business which, for some time past, had been brought before that Court, notwithstanding the pressure of the arrears of business both in banco and at nisi prius, the business of the Court had increased to the amount of between seven and eight
668
thousand causes in the last year. Now see what had happened in the other Courts. The Court of Exchequer, in which God knew there never were any arrears, in which there was so little business that one would have supposed it was impossible there could be less; so little, that it was a common joke in Westminster hall to say of the Barons of the Exchequer, that "they were no sooner down than they were up," for they often sat at ten o'clock and rose at a quarter past ten, and if it happened that they ever sat from ten to twelve, it was reckoned a very long sitting—in this Court, in such a Court, far from there having been any increase of business, there had actually been a falling-off, while in the King's Bench the causes had increased to the number of seven or eight thousand. If, therefore, the Courts should be made as equal as possible, still, unless there was some compulsion on the suitors, it would be utterly impossible to equalize the business of the Courts. The more he examined the subject the more he was led to believe that the thing would be impracticable, unless they resorted to compulsion. To be sure, it would be useless to make the attempt unless men of acknowledged talents and learning were found to preside in the other Courts; and indeed it would be cruel to force a suitor into a Court in the Judges presiding over which he had no confidence; for the suitors in the Courts at Westminster were not like those on a circuit, where they must take the going Judge. In Westminster-hall, however, if a suitor were compelled to go into a particular Court, he ought to have the Judges so distinguished for legal knowledge and talents as that it might be to him almost a matter of indifference into which Court he went; but again he would say, that unless some measures of compulsion were used, he did not see how the business of the Courts could be equalized. These were the points which suggested themselves to his mind at that moment; but of course he reserved to himself the power of objecting in future to any parts of the measures to be introduced, when they should come in detail before the House. As far as the right hon. Gentleman went, he most cordially concurred with him; but he would reserve to himself the power of protesting against any part of his course, if he should not think that he went far enough.
Mr. Fergusongave also his concur-

669
rence to most of the arrangements referred to in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he did not rise so much to state that concurrence, as to express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman had not said one word about any reform in one Court, as important as any of those mentioned—or he should rather say the most important of all — he meant the Court of Privy Council. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in the progress of that salutary reform which he was about to introduce into our Superior Courts, would have brought under the consideration of the House some plan for improving the constitution of the Court of the Privy Council, which, though one of the most important, was, in his opinion, one of the most imperfect in the country. He would admit that it was usually presided over by a Judge of great talents, the Master of the Rolls taking his seat there on important occasions, and other Judges of eminence occasionally presiding, but then it was only when the business of his own Court did not interfere. The duty was in fact looked upon as a secondary office. It was, he presumed, unnecessary for him to point out to the House the importance of having fit persons to preside over a Court of which the decisions involved the property of millions of the subjects of this country residing in the colonies and in the East Indies. The Judge who generally presided in that Court, was, as he had stated, a man of eminent legal talents, but he was assisted, sometimes, by a Lord of the Admiralty, sometimes by a Paymaster of the Forces, sometimes by the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, or some other individual under Government—all of them highly respectable in their several situations, but not, from education or habit the best qualified to sit as Judges in a Court where cases of such vast importance came for final adjudication. He did earnestly invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this Court, and he hoped, that as that right hon. Gentleman's exertions had already been productive of such beneficial results to the judicial administration of the country, as would entitle him to the lasting gratitude of the public, he would add to the motives of that gratitude by directing his mind to a Court in which reform was so greatly to be desired. As he had taken the liberty to offer himself to the notice of the House on this point, he would, while he was on his
670
legs, venture to add a few words on that part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, in which, personally, he was most interested,—he meant that which related to the proposed reform in the Courts of Scotland. He could state from his own knowledge, and could prove it by documents, that there were no Judges of any Court in the United Kingdom who were more constantly, more usefully, or more meritoriously engaged in the discharge of their judicial functions, than those who presided in the Court of Session in Scotland. He did not think that any reduction in the number of Judges in that Court should take place. In the remark made by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) as to the necessity of promoting the extension of trial by jury in civil causes in Scotland, he entirely concurred. He knew that prejudices existed against it among many of the practitioners in that Court, but he also knew that that mode was the most effectual for coming at the truth incases of disputed facts, and that altogether it was the most free from faults. He would not go to the other points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but in passing would say a word as to the Consistorial Courts. No course was, in his opinion, more objectionable than that of having only one Judge in such a Court. There ought to be several. He would therefore venture to suggest that the Consistorial Court should be abolished altogether, and the business of it transferred to the Court of Session, rather than it should be continued with the presidency of only one Judge. He could state, on the authority of a venerable Judge, Lord Stowell, that never was the judicial power of any Court administered with greater ability or more sound discretion than by the Consistorial Court of Scotland. He also concurred with his honourable and learned friend, the Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Brougham), in thinking that it would be the wisest policy to place an English barrister at the head of the Court which should have to try civil causes by jury. In no other way could the country derive so much benefit from the establishment of trial by jury in civil causes. Of the great importance of the services rendered by the venerable Judge at the head of that Court, no one who had an opportunity of knowing the Court could doubt; and he also admitted that if the country should be deprived of his invaluable services, it would be extremely difficult to supply his

671
place. The appointment of an English barrister in the Court who had to try jury cases would have the effect of keeping the other Judges steady in the attainment of those important advantages which might be expected from an extension of the civil trial by jury in that country, and this had been already proved by the experience of what had been effected there by the appointment of an English Judge. When he spoke in what he considered as duly deserved terms of praise of the Judges of the Court of Session, he could not say the same as to the process of that Court. The written pleadings which had been regulated with a view to save the time of the Judges, and to shorten the proceedings, had not had that effect. The written pleadings were now longer than usual, and the proceedings in Court were not shortened by the law restricting them. Looking at the whole of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed, he thanked him for the great attention he had bestowed upon this important subject; and when each separate measure came before the House, he should be ready to give it his most serious consideration. With respect to the alterations in the Welsh Courts, he for one should wish to see a fusion, as much as possible, of English and Welsh judicial administration, but he hoped that in the changes to be made attention would be paid, as far as possible, to the feelings of the people in that part of the kingdom. He fully concurred with the right hon. Gentleman and with his hon. and learned friend, that no Judge ought to have a seat in that House. He would extend that principle to others holding judicial situations, as well as to the Welsh Judges, for example, to the Master of the Rolls, and to the Masters in Chancery. No Judge who had to decide in important questions, involving the property of others, ought, in his opinion, to have a seat in that House.
Mr. Humebegged to express the satisfaction he felt at the proposed changes, as far as they went; and as they had now been submitted to the consideration of the House, the sooner they were effected the better. He hoped, however, that in making them the country would not be put to any unnecessary expense. In making those changes, he did hope that the House would consider whether the number of Judges in the Court of Session in Scotland was not much greater than was required. The Scotch Judges had not one half the business
672
to perform which was done by the Judges in this country; for instance, the Barons of the Exchequer had not ten causes to try in a year. That was a sufficient reason for reducing the number of Judges in that Court, and in his opinion, the business now done by the four Judges might be effectually performed by one. The business of the Court of Session was not of that heavy nature to require fifteen Judges, and he thought that about half that number would be sufficient. They had, it was well known, not much to do, and they sat only for five months in the year; meeting at ten in the morning, and not sitting later than three. He would say, then, let those which were unnecessary be reduced, and let the reductions save the country the expense of the increase proposed to be made in the salaries of those that remained. The right hon. Gentleman talked of prospective advantage and ultimate saving. He (Mr. Hume) had often heard of those kind of savings, but he had never seen any of them realized. He would suggest, therefore, that a course should be adopted which would bring those savings about at once. While on this subject, he would observe, that in a few days he would make a Motion, to which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object, for a return of the number of hours which the Judges in the Courts of Scotland sat in Court during the year.
Mr. Ferguson, in explanation, said that he had not expressed a wish that things should remain as they were in the Scotch Courts. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for what he proposed, but he was not a defender of the state of things as they now existed in those Courts.
The Attorney-Generaltrusted, that a the several subjects were not now before the House in detail, it would not be expected that he should then enter into a minute examination of those matters which hereafter would come fully before them. His right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) had only proposed to give the House a general view of the course to be hereafter pursued, and he trusted the House would feel that he was more entitled to credit for the extent to which his explanation had gone, than to blame for any omission of more minute detail of every part. He fully concurred with his right hon. friend in the remark that they owed much of those judicial reforms to the very able exposition given on a former occasion by his hon. and learned

673
friend, the Member for Knaresborough, to whose suggestions, in the progress of those measures, he should be disposed to pay that attention to which, from his extensive acquaintance with the subject, they were entitled; but he owned he could not concur with him in that which he threw out respecting the compulsory introduction of business into particular Courts—for he saw what appeared to him to be such strong objections to that course, that he could not resort to it, except in case of the last necessity. He had had some experience in the Court of King's Bench; and he must say, that though there was now an arrear of business in it, yet it was conducted with so much dispatch, that sometimes cases were disposed of in one term the actions in which had commenced in the preceding, which was as quick as the forms of law would permit. He would not go further into the subjects before the House, as more fit opportunities for discussing them would occur when each was brought separately forward. He would content himself with giving notice, that on an early day he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for assimilating the Administration of Justice in England and Wales. He was anxious to name a day on which he might hope to have the assistance of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) for he should be unwilling to bring it on in his absence, and he hoped that this day week might be convenient to him.
Mr. O'Connellnever heard anything that gave him more satisfaction than the clear and distinct statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and instead of being surprised that he could not go more minutely into the technicalities of the subject, it was matter of astonishment that he had been able to compress so much in so short a statement. There was healing in what he said. It was a clear admission of the necessity for improvement—of the fact, that the Government are not hostile to a change—that it did not even oppose the vis inertiœ of a silent resistance, but that it wished for a reform of notorious and long felt abuses. He only regretted that when the Court of Admiralty was mentioned, something had not been said of another Court of Admiralty besides that in Scotland. No doubt it was not forgotten, although it had not been alluded to. He only meant at that moment to hint at the question of blending the
674
jurisdiction of the Admiralty with the Consistorial Court, and giving an equitable jurisdiction to the Courts of Common Law, with the hope that was held out that there would be a complete amalgamation of all the Courts; so that justice could be obtained by one simple and intelligible mode of proceeding, instead of a party being compelled to resort to several different modes of recovering his right. If a Judge were fit for one Court, he must be fit for all. As a proof, he might refer to the late Attorney General, who might have been Chief Justice of the King's Bench, but who was actually Chancellor—a fact which proved him to be fit for either Court. He did not wish to leave the Chancery as it now was. Its process was as cumbrous as possible; and if it were now to be created ab initio, there was no one who would venture to recommend such a vicious course of proceeding as it exhibited, and which was rather a nuisance than a benefit to the country. He asserted that there ought to be but one simple mode of proceeding for all people in the recovery of their rights. The next thing he should wish to see was the establishment of local tribunals throughout the country. Why a man in Cornwall or Cumberland was to be compelled, in order to obtain a debt there, to send up to London for a bit of parchment, and what magic there was in such a process, he knew not, and he should, therefore, wish to see the evil abolished. There were to be Courts for the recovery of Small Debts in every county. Why not Courts for the recovery of Large Debts? If the Judge were fit to decide on one, he was equally fit to decide on the other. Surely he should not be told in that House that the business of the rich and wealthy required a different Judge from the business of the weak and poor. He did not look to London for the establishment in one focus of a number of Courts, with great Lawyers and rich Judges—but he looked for the establishment of a number of tribunals that would dispense justice in the different counties in the kingdom to their various inhabitants. The third matter which he wished to notice was the subject of Special Pleading. He was most happy to hear that the technical system of pleading was to be abolished; and that its forms were to be reduced to something like common sense. Such forms were an outrage to those who could

675
penetrate their meaning, while they were utterly unintelligible to the mass of mankind. The right hon. Gentleman himself had afforded a proof of their difficulty and unintelligibility, by having been himself unable to go into the minute details of technical knowledge. Why should there be anything in the laws with which that right hon. Gentleman was unable to make himself fully acquainted? Was it not disgraceful to the laws that a Gentleman of his talents and industry should be ignorant of a very material part of them? If it were thus, why not abolish the witchcraft of these forms, and make the law, which was to govern all, intelligible to all? Was it not disgraceful to a country like England that decisions should take place in her Courts upon the forms of the pleadings as contradistinguished from the merits of the case? [hear, hear.] He trusted he should live to see the day when a Judge would be ashamed to say he decided a case on forms, on those forms which a Counsel or an Attorney might mistake, but which could not affect the right or equity of the claim set up by the party himself. A great deal had been said on the subject of Fees. They ought to be abolished. There should be no turnpike tolls on the road to Justice. Under the present system, a man who was not able to pay the fees of the officers of Justice was deprived of Justice, for he could not go into the Courts to claim it, so that it was only given to those who could well afford to pay for its purchase. The first great reform in the law ought to be to make law cheap. The Judges and the officers ought to be paid by the public, and a man who wished to assert his right in a Court of Justice ought not to be stopped on his entrance there with a demand of fees, which, if he could not satisfy, would prevent him from recovering his right. The hon. Member near him had complained of there being only one Judge in a Court. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that was quite enough; and he had the authority of England in his favour, since not only was there but one Judge in the Court of Chancery, in the Vice Chancellor's Court, and in the Court of the Master of the Rolls; but we had recently deprived the Chief Baron of the company of his learned brothers, and had made him a solitary Judge in an Equity Court of his own. There were few who recollected well what the Courts were, that
676
would not say one Judge was sufficient in each, and that the other three only delayed the party, God knew how long, before he could get his case decided. He threw out these ideas as preparatory to what he recommended the right hon. Gentleman to bring forward as a thing necessary above all others—he meant the formation of a Code for England. All other countries had Codes, and why should England be behind them in the simplicity of her laws? The principle of Codification was good. Many persons, no doubt, would object to a Code as not sufficiently comprehensive; but what the right hon. Gentleman opposite was now doing, and what he had done, in consolidating the principles of two hundred and seventy-two Statutes into eight, was Codification, and he ought to proceed until he had established a complete Code. It might be said that the cases likely to arise for legal adjudication in this country would be too numerous and too complicated to be comprehended in any one Code; but we had at present a law for almost every case that could arise, and where such a law did not exist, the matter was left to the discretion of the Judge, which was the worst of all law, because it must be an ex post facto law.
Mr. Peel, in reply, said, that he had avoided going into any detail as to the construction of the Scotch Courts, but referring to what fell from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, he should have no objection to such returns as those for which he intended to move, but he feared that the returns of the number of hours which the Scotch Judges sat in the Court of Session would not go far to establish the hon. Member's case — that the number could be reduced to half. Their attendance in Court would not show the amount of the business they had to perform. Great part of the business of the Scotch Courts was clone in writings; and besides the hours of attendance, the hon. Member should know how much of the time of the Judges was occupied out of Court in examining those written documents. Besides, it should be borne in mind that the Scotch Courts had much business in law and in equity, and that many matters connected with elections were brought before them. If, therefore, the hon. Member wished to see the whole extent of the business of the Scotch Judges, he should alter the form of the returns for which he had expressed his intention to move. He

677
would say a word on what fell from the hon. Member for Clare, and he must say that he was glad to hear the tone of temperance and moderation with which he had adverted to this important subject. The hon. Member had acquired fame and popularity by his conduct elsewhere, but he could assure him that he might acquire greater fame and greater popularity by giving his efficient aid to reform the state of the law of the country. With respect to the hon. and learned Member's suggestion about special pleading, he must observe that he was not prepared to go so far. This, however, was a subject into which he would not enter, as it was one with which he was not sufficiently acquainted. However, much information on that point would be derived from the report of the Commission on the Common Law Courts. The suggestion of the hon. Member as to Codification, was one in which he could not go with him. It was, no doubt, very popular, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider what had been the result where it had been adopted. Let him only see what had been the extent of the comments on the Code Napoleon. In short, the more concise any legal Code was made, the more its interpretation was left to the discretion of the Judge. Now he had often heard it objected to English judicial administration, that too much was left to the discretion of Judges, but the more we allowed general rules of law to form our Code, the more we must necessarily leave to the discretion of Judges, and thus the adoption of a Code would be open to one of the hon. and learned Member's strongest objections—that of an ex post facto law for a new case in the discretionary interpretation of the Judge. There was a medium to be observed between the system, too much in practice in former times, of making a specific act for each case as it arose, which produced that mass of legislation that we were now endeavouring to consolidate, and that of making a Code which would be too concise to embrace more than general principles.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood what he said about a Code. He was not for making now a new Code of laws for the country. We had already the materials in English law for an excellent Code, and the comments of the Judges would form so many philosophic experiments by which the fitness of certain parts of it might be decided.
678
The Code Napoleon was good as far as it went, but its fault was that it did not go far enough. It was not sufficiently comprehensive to embrace many subjects which it ought to have included.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
The Marquis of Blandfordspoke to the following effect.—I rise, Sir, to answer the call made on me last Session; and following the course suggested for my adoption by my right hon. opponent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I rise to offer for the consideration of this House, "a practical detailed measure:" and first, Sir, I must preface the observations I shall have occasion to address to you, by calling to the recollection of this House the course pursued by me upon the occasion I have referred to. I then, Sir, considered it my duty to divide the House upon the Question whether Parliament would or would not be pleased by a formal resolution to recognise the existence and venality of the close and decayed boroughs, for that really was the whole of the question which I thought it advisable to submit to the House, under the very singular opposition I met with from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. The venality of these boroughs is as sure as their existence, and both are equally notorious; but there is a wide difference between the notoriety of such offences, and a Parliamentary recognition of their existence. Mere notoriety begets defiance of public opinion and a fearless habit of offending. But if Parliament, by a formal vote, had put its brand mark upon these transactions—if by some general resolution it had stigmatized them as crimes against the law of Parliament and the Constitution of the country, a good foundation would then have been laid for the reform of what had been declared to be wrong and true, for the prevention of what had been denounced as illegal. But it did not seem good to the majority of this House to hurt the sensibilities of the Boroughmonger, by calling his trade by its proper name, or to injure his interests by saying, that his gains were condemned by Parliament and the country. The people, however, will speak out, though Parliament may chuse to keep silence, and may try to impose silence upon others. The voice of the country is not to be stifled by a vote of this House— it will attempt in vain to smother truth—

679
not all the finesse of all the political intriguers, nor all the power of all the political despots, will be able to stem or turn aside the current which is now setting in, full and strong, against the present system of chaffering for seats in this House. It is in vain to attempt to deck these transactions in all sorts of gaudy colours, and to call them happy methods of introducing to public notice modest merit and latent talent, and virtue, and patriotism, and I know not what besides. It is in vain to reckon up the Whigs and the Tories of note, and of no note, who have contrived to bring themselves, and their independence, into Parliament, by these back-gates and bye-ways. The thing retains the same character of corruption, whether it generates the venal Statesman, or the useful Member of Parliament; the splendid fly that soars in this House upon the wings of eloquence, or the grub that feeds upon the vitals of the country—Corruption is the father of them all. Neither will all the speeches of all the approvers of such a system be able to make corruption incorrupt, or convert the Borough business into a blessing, or legalize the wholesale trade of selling seats. As matters now stand, the fury of the law may be said to mistake its objects—it passes over the daring outrages upon the Constitution, in order to fall with redoubled violence upon the petty assaults, and petty larcenies, committed against the rights and liberties of the subject, and the purity of elections. The storm of Parliamentary enactments has fallen upon the small tradesmen, and retail dealers in the bribery line—
"Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura Columbas."
Many a wordy statute pours its thunders upon the head of the starveling who sells his vote, and dines upon his degradation; but our Code contains no store of wrath, no pains, nor penalties, nor censures, for the great and extensive ready-money trade in returns to Parliament. Seats, two or ten at a time, may be bought and sold, and all concerned will continue, all, "all honourable men" — and they will find in this House not merely apologists but panegyrists—they may be even extolled for true patriots—and the ready-money method of getting a seat is extolled too, and is called patriotic, and expedient, and constitutional, and just as it ought to be. But, Sir, I cannot concur in such sentiments; such panegyric and such philosophy are alike adverse to my views and
680
convictions—and happily for the country, and all its great interests, his Majesty's Ministers do not appear to participate in these opinions—I certainly have never heard them take that line of defence, or rather empty declamation, and most impotent delusion. They have never set foot upon that slippery and hollow ground —so that, in spite of the negative by which the right hon. Gentleman opposed my resolution last Session, I shall continue to think that Government may be disposed to treat the question of Reform, not in the spirit of party politicians or borough traders, but upon the principles of truth and reason. Agreeably, therefore, Sir, to the terms of my notice, and in conformity with what I would fain hope I might find to be the disposition of the Government, I will endeavour to make the question one of principle, and not of party. I will refer it altogether to the decision of the Law and Constitution. I will make them the criteria of what is right and wrong—true and false—sincere and corrupt,—in respect of our Parliamentary Returns.
Now, Sir, without going into any abstract question about the right of popular representation, without touching the historical controversies upon that point, without investigating the origin of Parliaments or Parliamentary Councils, it may (and, as I think, safely) be laid down that national Councils, of some sort and denomination, are coeval with our existence as a nation. Normans—Saxons — Britons—all had them. These are facts capable of being established by recorded evidence, not truths deducible by arguing from natural principles and probabilities. We find the vestiges of popular representation, the elements of a Parliament, in all parts and periods of our history. To trace the steps by which this primitive right was moulded into its present shape and size—to shew by what collision of contending interest it has been compressed and restrained from without—by what elasticity from within it has often struggled for expansion— to cast up the number of all the political conflicts in which the question has been involved, though interesting, are unnecessary speculations. The inquiries we have to deal with are, whether the people are, or are not, at this time represented according to the manifest purpose and design of the Laws and Constitution of the country—or whether by the lapse and

681
vicissitudes of time great changes have taken place in the state of our Parliamentary Representation, or rather in its very principles and efficiency; and whether any thing can be found in the altered state of our political relations, foreign or domestic, to prevent a return to the original practice, and the fundamental principles of the Constitution. As to the question then, whether the people are, or are not, represented in a manner conformable with the principles and purposes of the Constitution: notwithstanding the ingenuity of a Palcy, or the eloquence of a Canning, I assert that they are not so represented—it is contrary to those principles, that decayed and desolate places should return Members to this House—it is contrary to those principles that seats in this House should be bought and sold. And first, as to the fixedness of the returns of Representatives from towns and boroughs, the same number from the same places, let what will be their state, and condition, as to the density, or thinness, or nothingness of their population—their wealth or their poverty — their commercial or agricultural strength or weakness. Now here, Sir, we find at once a wide departure from the principle that gave birth to the returns of citizens and burgesses. Without wishing to re-invest the Crown with its old discretion of issuing its summons to this or that town or borough, according to some real or supposed superiority which it possessed over others, I cannot but observe that the variableness perceived in the issue of the King's writs, and the returns made upon them, suggest this important conclusion—that in those ancient days, which some may be disposed to call days of political ignorance, civic or municipal prosperity seems mainly to have determined the fitness of the city or borough for the elective franchise. I am aware that there are some outstanding questions upon this point; and that it has been contended that the King in early times was wont to summon none but the royal boroughs— none but his own tenants on burgage tenure, to come to his Councils, and settle their rates of contribution to his wants: but this will not account for the nature, number, and diversity of the early returns; and I think it is clear, from the history of the places themselves, that much depended upon their prospe-
682
rity. When towns and boroughs were seen to thrive, the King's favour was also seen to follow their good fortune; and when their gold was seen to glitter, the Crown discovered the means of satisfying its necessities, and found abundant reasons for calling upon them to send their citizens and burgesses to Parliament: for whether it was the King, or the King's officer, who selected the cities or boroughs, it makes no difference to my argument; it was their wealth and prosperity which determined the choice — their ability to defray the expenses of their citizens and burgesses during their attendance in Parliament—their rank as trading towns—their right to be represented, by reason of their commercial weight and greatness— in short, Sir, whatever might be the motive, public or private, which determined the royal choice, it was the consequence of the town, under some relation or another — I mean its political consequence—which pointed it out as a proper subject for these Parliamentary honours. If, then, this change-ableness in the issue of writs of summons be admitted, as it must be, for it is an historical fact, it will not only throw light upon the present unintelligible returns from places of no consideration; but further, it will suggest the fitness of recurring to primitive principles, and of transferring elective franchises from old fossways and crumbling castles, from the solitude of the plain and the ploughed field, to the busy haunts of men—to the industrious, and the intelligent, and the independent, among the sons of agriculture and commerce. But besides this departure from the ancient principles and practice of Parliamentary Representation, there is another which has taken place, and which may be said to have arisen out of it. When boroughs became the sepulchres of departed greatness and prosperity, retaining nothing of their former condition but their name, and their soil, and their custom of returning one or two Members to Parliament, they became the property of the rich and the powerful; and instead of being dependent, as they originally were, upon the pleasure of the Crown for their writs of summons, they became dependent upon the pleasure of their purchasers, for the returns to those writs—and their writs of summons and charters of incorporation (like other paper and parchment securities,) became marketable commodi-

683
ties, conveying to the buyer the certainty of honours, and the contingency of profits in this House—this also is a manifest departure from constitutional principles and practice. When towns and boroughs were first called upon to send representatives to Parliament, it was not intended to decorate these places, in their decay and downfall, with immortal honours, or to make their lifeless bodies fetch high prices, like subjects for dissection—it was not the design to invest the silence and desolation of ruined streets, and market places, with the everlasting right of sending a couple of Members to the National Council. It was never meant to help on the speculations of craft, or the gains of avarice, or the projects of ambition, by making seats and franchises, articles to be bought by the best bidder.
But, Sir, these departures from ancient principles, these violations of ancient practice, have not only taken place in the manner of making returns from these close and decayed boroughs (in which returns nothing can now be discovered like "fraunche et due election," according to the ancient statute—nothing like the principle in the ancient writ, "quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur;" but there are still more remarkable violations and departures in respect of the qualifications of the Burgesses returned. By the ancient laws and practice thy were to be "resident in-dwellers, and freemen of the borough or city they represented, and no others"—"Nuls autres in nulle manière." It is true that these laws were repealed— it is true also that to the repealing Act we may fairly ascribe much of the mischief that now exists. Boroughs are now supplied with representatives from every other description of persons, except residents and indweliers, or persons locally connected with those boroughs. We may look through the whole series of Cornish returns, and scarcely find a Cornish name in a list of their burgesses: we cannot even say "stat nominis umbra;'" name as well as thing are both gone—the close and decayed boroughs of Cornwall have passed into the hands of strangers to the county. The interest of the Stannaries are sometimes confided to speculators in the mines of Mexico and Peru. Paper is seen to triumph over the influence and interest of its tin. By the mere operation of paper and parchment, Cornish seats have been transferred like shares in a Joint Stock
684
Company, at the market price, to some great capitalist of London. And Sir, there is another principle, a principle well developed in a Writ of 47th Edward 3rd, which it is most important to attend to, and apply. It is there laid clown as a necessary qualification, that Borough Representatives should have a suitable knowlege of local interests: the Writ in question required the Sheriff to return "de quolibet Burgo duos Burgenses qui in navigio et exercitio mercandisarum notitiam habeant meliorem;" and the Writ concludes with an injunction that none are to be returned who want this necessary local or rather municipal information. The knowledge which was required in the Burgesses was a plain practical knowledge for every day's use; it was not a superfine knowledge of political economy; that sort of science which has filled the country with bankrupts and bookmakers, which produces thick octavos, and thin purses, and makes men very rich in fine phrases, and very poor in pocket. This was not the kind of knowledge which King Edward required for his Burgesses. They were to be knowing men "in exercitio mercandisarum," in a good sound tradesman-like information, such as was bottomed upon common sense and common experience— not upon theory and hair-splitting, and the lollies of a fanciful philosophy. The result, then, of all these references to Parliamentary antiquities is, that Borough Elections ought to be as free as those of Counties—that the Members returned ought to have some original connexion with the places they represent. They ought to have also local knowledge, a plain practical knowledge of the trade, and trading interests, of their constituents. But to all this it may, perhaps, be replied that the system is ancient, that the practice has passed into usage, and become an established custom, and that it is not safe to disturb what time has sanctioned and settled. To all this, however, the words of Lord Bacon will supply the shortest, and readiest refutation. "Time (says he) is a great innovator," meaning that time itself, and what is called the march of events, produce such changes in the circumstances, relations, and affinities of old institutions, as to make them different in fact and effect, though they may continue the same in name; they may even become so different, as to require adjustments and adaptations to the vicissitudes of time, in

685
order to secure their original utility; and that great man has followed up his remark by such pertinent illustrations of it, that I cannot forbear citing them in support of my own views upon this question: neither will they be thought the worse for being ingrafted upon some of the old adagia of our laws. "Leges," (says he) "novis legibus non recreatœ acescunt"—laws not refreshed by new laws wax sour—"qui mala non permutat in bonis non perseverat"—without change of ill, a man cannot continue the good—to take away abuses supplant-eth not good orders, but establisheth them —"Morosa moris retentio res turbulenta est œque ac novitas"—a contentious retaining of custom is a turbulent thing, as much so as innovation—a good husbandman is ever pruning in his vineyard, or his fields, not unseasonably, not unskilfully, but lightly; he findeth ever somewhat to do." And so, Sir, it is with respect to the subject of Parliamentary Reform; and I assert, upon this high authority, that to defend as a tiling that is j praiseworthy, or to recommend as a thing that is expedient, the present ownership in seats and suffrages, and writs of summons to Parliament, because it is ancient, is a sort of revolutionary doctrine; it is to hold the language and opinions of revolutionary men; it is to think, and talk, and act contrary to the principles of our representation, and the analogies of our law, and the spirit of our Constitution, and the judgment of our best writers. The theorist who sets about the defence of venal and proprietary boroughs, may, perhaps, be able to cite many ancient and modern appointments by ladies, as well as gentlemen—for, if I rightly recollect the words of the Record, Dame Dorothy Packington, in the 14th of Elizabeth, sent two Burgesses to Parliament from her town of Aylesbury; and notified, under her hand and seal, that they were her Representatives; and that whatever they did was to be considered as her act and deed.; In spite, however, of this high authority, and all other ancient precedents, it will not be possible to make these crooked transactions strait: it will not be possible to correct their deformities, or to cleanse their foulness, or to legalize their unlawfulness. They are, and ever must remain foul spots upon our drapery—dark and dirty places upon the apparel of this House. Neither are they to be washed out by rhetorical ablutions; by
686
descanting upon the beauty which results from the intermixture of imperfections, and the harmony which arises from discord, and the practical advantage of departing from the letter of the law, and of doing a little evil that good may come. All this, and a great deal more may be said, and admired, by the lovers of dexterous declamation; but if ten times more were to be said, and ten times better, it could not have the effect of altering the essential character of these transactions; for these questions still recur, Is it agreeable to the Constitution of the Commons' House of Parliament, that there should be any thing-like settled succession in the course and order of sitting in this House? that there should be any thing like purchase in the mode of getting into it? that there should be any thing like an heir loom—any thing like an heritable, or a marketable, or a testamentary property, or interest attached to these benches?—a sort of property or interest which a man may call his own if he buys it, or is born to it. Such things as these, Sir, are too monstrous to admit, I will not say of decoration, but defence; and when we find able men, politicians, or philosophers trying their best tactics to save these things from attack and overthrow, one cannot help lamenting their waste of fine words, and fine wit—their misuse of the florid in style, and the subtle in argument, and the sarcastic in reply. I might, See, proceed to point out other changes produced by time. Changes have taken place in respect of the qualifications both of the electors and the elected; and changes in the mode of discharging these great public trusts of representation; and changes in men's opinions of them, and in the way in which they are now considered, and spoken of, and sought for. Instead of being called hardships and burthens, from which poor towns prayed to be relieved, they have become lucrative deputations, beneficiary appointments, from which poor towns contrive to derive a profit instead of the Sheriff being obliged to secure the appearance of his citzen or burgess by manucaptor, and even by the seizure of their goods and chattels, he is sure to find plenty of candidates for a vacant seat, and no lack of cost or contrivance to obtain it. Instead of receiving wages—(Knights 4s., Citizens and Burgesses 2s. a day)— many honourable Gentlemen would be glad to hold their seats at no higher cost, than the daily payment of ten times the

687
higher sum. But though time has changed the face of all things, both in and out of Parliament; though it has changed all the great interests of the country, and all the relations of public and parliamentary life; and the whole moral, as well as political economy of the nation—it has produced no change in the real objects and purposes of parliamentary representation. It has not in any way affected the reasons which made the Commons of England demand and obtain an adequate appearance by proxy in the great Council of the nation. It has not weakened, nor obscured, any one of the plain and simple propositions contained in the writs of summons to the Sheriffs of the realm. What was good law and good policy upon the issue of the first writ for Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, five hundred and sixty-five years ago, continues to be so still; and there is not a better way of arriving at the Reform which is so much desired, than by reverting to ancient principles, to the manifest designs of our forefathers, to the records of their prudence, as well as of their prowess; and I believe that surer, safer, and readier guidance will be found in the light of their wisdom and the brightness of their example, than in the dreams of the enthusiasts, or in the doctrines of the philosophy of the present day; and I am convinced that it will be found that the best sort of Reform will be the restoration of what time has impaired, the cleansing of what corruption has polluted, the rectifying of what craft has twisted aside from its proper use and real design.—Nothing, Sir, it appeal's to me now, remains but that I should simply and as shortly as I may be able, state the outlines of the Bill which I hold in my hand, and which in its principal provisions I have endeavoured to construct upon ancient principles—principles which have appeared to me best fitted for amending and repairing the Constitution of this House—"Sum ex Us qui antiquos mirantur."—Now, then, Sir, I propose by this Bill, which is to restore to the Commons of England their rightful share in the Legislature, to place upon record, by way of recitals, the fundamental principles of representation, as I find them in the books, when both the theory and the practice were in the state of their greatest purity; that the clear meaning of this Bill may never be misunderstood. I find from the time of Henry 3rd, and
688
throughout the subsequent reigns of the three first Edwards (a period at which Sir Matthew Hale, and other text writers, declare the law of England to have reached the highest degree of perfection), that there can be no doubt that the Citizens and Burgesses returned to Parliament, by virtue of the King's writ to the Sheriffs of the different counties, were elected and chosen by the inhabitant-householders of the large and populous towns, paying scot and lot; and so it was declared by a Committee of the House of Commons of which Lord Coke (the great oracle of the law of England) and the learned Mr. Seldon, were both Members; for during the reigns above alluded to, and down to that of Edward IV. the practice of granting royal Charters had not been introduced—the first grant being in the seventeenth year of that reign, by which Charter the right of sending one Burgess to Parliament was granted to the Borough of Wenlock.—I propose, then, by the First enactment of this Bill, that a Committee of twenty-one Members of this House (to be chosen by ballot), shall be appointed within ten days after the passing of this Act, and hereafter within the first ten days after the commencement of each Session, with full power to ascertain the exact state of every city, borough, and port in the United Kingdom.—Secondly, That as soon as the said Committee shall have ascertained the fact that any city, borough, or port, had fallen into decay, and ceased to be such populous and wealthy place, as was originally intended to send a Member or Members-to serve in Parliament, or that the franchise granted to any city, or borough, ought to be considered as forfeited by mis-user or non-user, that it shall be the duty of the Committee to report such facts to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and that such report shall be deemed and taken to be that which, during the purity of the representation, would have taken place, and actually did take place in many instances; namely, the petition of such city or borough to be relieved of the burthen of sending Members to Parliament. Thirdly, That upon receiving such Report, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to announce in the Gazette that such city or borough has ceased to send Members to Parliament, or that the franchise thereof has been forfeited for mis-user.—Fourthly, The Com-

689
mittee are directed to begin their investigation and reports with the burgage tenure boroughs, because these are known in their present state to afford a direct proprietary interest. — Fifthly, That as soon as such announcement shall be made in the Gazette, the Committee shall select such populous unrepresented, or inadequately represented, towns or places, with the hundreds, districts, or parishes surrounding the same, as the Committee shall think proper, in order to fill up the seats rendered vacant as above; and it is provided that the right of voting in such towns or places so selected, shall be according to the oldest qualifications known to the law, and the practice of the country; namely, in all the inhabitant householders paying scot and lot—or in other words assessed to any tax, parochial or parliamentary; and the Committee are directed to report such selection to the Secretary of State, who is to cause the same to be published in the Gazette, and to send copies thereof to the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the returning officers of such towns and places; and such report is to be deemed, and taken to be, the enfranchisement of such towns or places to send Members to Parliament.—Sixthly, As the object of this Bill is to restore the representation to its ancient purity, I propose, among other excellent old laws now either repealed or become obsolete, to restore the principle and practice of paying Members the wages of attendance, according to the value of money at the present day, which I consider should be 21. a day for citizens and burgesses, and 41. for Knights, or Members for counties. No part of our representative system is better established, and it remains the law to this day. If this principle had been strictly adhered to, as it ought to have been, few of the abuses that we now have to complain of could have existed—for, as fast as towns fell into decay they would have been relieved of the burthen of sending Members to Parliament, and other larger and more wealthy and populous towns would have been enfranchised. — Seventhly, I propose, after all populous towns and places shall be represented, that the vacant seats which may remain should be filled first by a representation of those counties in Scotland now subject to alternate representation only, and then by adding one or two Members to such other counties in the
690
United Kingdom as the Committee may think stand most in need of such addition; and it is provided, that before the Committee shall add to the County Representation, they are to increase the number of the electors of all those cities and boroughs (now open, and not justifying a Report upon the grounds stated in this Bill), by adding thereto such Hundreds and Parishes round the same as the Committee may think proper, in order that the electors so augmented may be fully able to bear the burthen of paying the wages of attendance.—Eighthly, In order to ensure to any householder assessed to any tax the right of voting, I propose to enact that any such person, who may not be included in any of the places to be enfranchised, may vote at the enfranchised town or place nearest to his residence, provided he agrees to be assessed for payment of the wages, &c. With respect to Scotland, I feel that after the Petitions for Reform from Edinburgh, and almost every borough in Scotland, now before the House, it would be most unjust towards the people of that part of the United Kingdom, and also most unwise and impolitic, to leave the representation in Scotland in the state in which it is: and, therefore, I mean by the foregoing enactments, that its representation shall be reformed and placed upon the same footing as that of England. —Ninthly, Having gone through the enactments as applicable exclusively to cities, boroughs, towns, and ports in the United Kingdom, I propose, as was proposed by Mr. Pitt, in respect of counties, that the right of voting shall be extended to copyholders, and certain leaseholders, not only because the greatest authorities in the law of England, with Lord Coke at their head, have laid it down that copyholders have an estate equal to freeholders, but because these copyhold lands and beneficial leaseholds, as they exist at this day, were tenures utterly unknown when the right of voting was limited to freeholds; and above all, because their copyhold and leasehold lands bear the same proportion of taxes, parochial and parliamentary, as is borne by freeholds. Freeholds also that happen to be situated in any town that is a county by itself, ought not for that reason to be taxed and unrepresented. I therefore propose, that the owners of such property shall be entitled to vote for the county at large. Then, again, with respect to Scotland:—it is a

691
fact well known to the gentlemen from that part of the kingdom, that voters for counties are manufactured by a sort of trick: that is, by separating what is called the superiority from the property; and thus voters have been created that have not a foot of property in the county. Is this representation of the landed interest? I propose, therefore, to put an end to all such fictitious means of creating votes; and as a large mass of landed property is now held by what are called feu-rights, that is, beneficial leases for lives, or long terms of years, and subject to a full share of taxation, I propose that this property, like the copyholds in England, shall be represented. — Tenthly, I propose that all persons now in possession of a right of voting for counties in Scotland, arising merely from superiority without property, shall be entitled to vote for the city or borough that shall be nearest to their places of residence, provided they agree to be assessed for the wages of their representatives.—By the Eleventh enactment of this bill, I propose to enact that no person, now having the right to vote for any city or borough, shall again exercise such right unless he be resident within the same; but that all such non-residents shall be entitled to vote for the city or borough nearest to his place of residence: it being the object of these enactments, that no person shall be disfianchised.—As I consider it necessary that regulations should be adopted, to prevent the enormous expense that often takes place at elections, I propose by the Twelfth enactment, that it shall be the duty of the Committee to make such regulations as they think proper for this purpose; and also to render the act of voting as little inconvenient as possible to the electors.—I find our system of representation greatly altered for the worse by some modern Acts of Parliament: these I propose, by the Thirteenth enactment of this Bill, to repeal. In the first place, it is notorious that the only reasons given for passing the Septennial Bill have long since ceased to exist. Therefore I propose to repeal that Bill, namely, the 7th of George 1st. In the next place, I do not find, from the time of Henry 3rd, down to the 9th year of the reign of Queen Anne, that there was any law that made it necessary for citizens and burgesses to be possessed of landed estates of the annual value of 300 1. or any other sum, in order to be qualified to sit in this House;
692
while I find, that from the most ancient times, namely, by the 1st of Henry 5th, c. 1. it was wisely enacted, "that such citizens and burgesses of cities and boroughs be chosen men, resident, dwelling-, and free in the same cities and boroughs, and no other in any wise." I therefore propose to repeal this modern Act of Queen Anne, as it relates to the qualification of citizens and burgesses to sit in Parliament.—By the Fourteenth enactment of this Bill, I propose to repeal a still more modern, and a still more monstrous violation of our old law, namely, the 14th George 3rd, c. 58, which was the first act that was made to repeal the wise enactments of the 1st of Henry 5th, requiring that the elected should be chosen from among the resident inhabitants of each place. But as some boroughs have the right by Charter to choose from among themselves, or others, I propose that the Committee by their Report shall confirm such right either to these boroughs, or to such towns as they may select in their place; and I propose to enact that any inhabitant of any town being elected, shall satisfy the 1st of Henry 3rd, as to being free of that place, for the purpose of serving in Parliament. I find by the Act of the 12th and 13th of William 3rd, "for the better securing the rights and liberties of the people," after solemnly declaring that "the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof," it is enacted, "that no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a Member of the House of Commons." Now, I hold these wise laws of our ancestors to be the land-marks of the Constitution; and therefore, I propose that the 6th of Queen Anne, c. 7, which, by allowing placemen to vacate their seats and be re-elected, has entirely defeated the wise provisions of the 12th and 13th William 3rd, be repealed; and I propose to declare that the Act of King William was intended to apply to all offices and places of profit under the King, that then existed, or should thereafter exist.—Lastly, Sir, I consider it expedient to repeal, not only such acts as have been passed for upholding what Bishop Burnett and the great Lord Chatham called "the rotten parts of the Constitution," but also such as touch the eligibility of Members to serve in Parliament, if the same shall have been made

693
in a particular case, and from personal motives towards any individual; and particularly when the rights and interests of a large and learned body of men have been thereby improperly affected. Now, I consider the Act that was passed against Mr. Horne Tooke in 1801 in this light, and as the late Lord Thurlow. whose authority I presume may be quoted in this House, pronounced this Act to be uncalled-for, unjust, levelled at a single individual, and infamous, from having an ex post facto operation against Mr. Tooke, and all who had then taken holy orders, several of whom had actually sat in this House; and as Mr. Tooke himself did, in reference to this Act, leave a most severe satire behind him upon this House (which, I think, ought to be wiped away,) by thanking his old friend, the then Prime Minister, for his great lenity and kindness in only proposing such a Bill (which Mr. Tooke accepted as the highest compliment that could be paid to the end of his political life) because, if the Minister had proposed a Bill to have had Mr. Tooke taken out of this House, and hanged in the lobby, the same majority would have been equally ready and willing to have passed it. Therefore, for the honour of Parliament, as well as in gratitude to the memory of this learned, uncorrupted, sincere, and dauntless Reformer, in whose steps I am now presuming to tread, I propose, by the Fifteenth enactment of this Bill, that this Act shall be taken off the Record of the Statute-book, and cancelled, or otherwise defaced, to the end that no such Act shall be visible in after ages, and that it shall be wholly repealed.—There is still one other principal enactment more, and that arises from the present and alarming state of the country. I believe this measure to be absolutely necessary to our safety, and I would wish to see the provisions of this Act executed in the most deliberate and considerate manner: but I cannot shut my eyes to the imminent peril of our situation, and to the fact, that it might become of the last importance for the country to have the benefit of the provisions of this Act before it could be possible for the nation to receive it from the Reform Committee. I consider it, therefore, proper to have an enactment to the following effect: —" That if this Parliament shall be dissolved before the Reform Committee shall have reported upon the Cities and Boroughs as it is required to do, so that the country
694
shall not be in possession of the benefits contemplated by this Act, then and in that case no writ for the election of Members to serve in Parliament shall be sent to those places that have so fallen into decay as to be unable to bear the burthen of paying the wages of attendance according to the provisions of this Act, and where there is notoriously a direct proprietary interest or domination in returning the Members of this House, and such places shall be enumerated in the Bill; and I propose to enact, "that writs in place thereof shall be sent to the Sheriffs of such Counties for the returns of citizens and burgesses of such large, populous, and unrepresented or inadequately represented towns, as his Majesty, with the advice of the Privy Council shall think proper: and that the returns of Members to serve in Parliament from all such towns, as well as from all other Cities and Boroughs to which the King's writ is sent, shall be made by the votes of a majority of the inhabitant householders, assessed to any tax parochial or parliamentary, and consenting to be assessed to the wages of attendance: and that all the provisions of this Act shall be in full force and virtue, the same as if the Reform Committee had made the reports which are hereby directed to be made." Then there are enactments to secure the regular attendance of the Committee—to exclude from the operation of the Bill the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin—and that each Member of the Committee shall take the oath I will now read;—"I do solemnly promise and swear that, laying aside all private interest or motives, I will to the best of my judgment, faithfully execute all the provisions of the Act under which I have been appointed a Member of the Reform Committee, according to the plain and obvious meaning of the said Act, as set forth in the preamble and enactments of the same; and if it shall appear to me that any improvement can be made in the said Act for the better fulfilling the clear intentions of the Legislature as therein expressed,—I will not fail to propose that such improvement shall be reported to the House of Commons, or to vote for it if proposed by others, and that in a matter of such importance as restoring to the House of Commons the perfect confidence of the nation, and securing for ever the rights and liberties of the people, I will consider it my duty to be regular and punctual in

695
my attendance on the said Committee, sickness, or any other unavoidable cause alone preventing such attendance." Finally, Sir, as respects the question of Compensation, I do not propose any compensation to the proprietors of boroughs, because I maintain that it never was intended by the law that it should be possible for any body to qualify any thing like a proprietary interest in the representation of the people, and that all such interests are obtained either by means positively and strictly forbidden by the law, or in consequence of a manifest perversion of its spirit and real meaning. On this point it was well observed by the late hon. Member for Durham, in 1821, that "it would not be depriving them of any thing they ought to have—it would be depriving them only of the corrupt and unconstitutional practicability of selling seats in Parliament, or bartering them for places, pensions, sinecures, and other appointments in the gift of the Minister." I will not, therefore, at the present day, be the proposed of any compensation to the traffickers of seats in Parliament. I am aware, Sir, that Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Wyvill, and many honest Reformers of that day, did adopt the principle of compensation; and I have heard that when it was proposed to Mr. Pitt on the part of certain proprietors of boroughs to accept the honours of the peerage in full compensation, he spurned at the idea; and that he returned precisely the same answer which I have heard the present Minister returned, when a dukedom and other stipendiary compensation were required for services in Parliament. "The dukedom is out of the question, but the other terms of place and stipend shall be complied with, whenever the vacancy happens." Now, Mr. Pitt has been reproached, and I think very justly, for making so many of these proprietors of boroughs. Peers of Parliament, and allowing them to keep their boroughs into the bargain. An actor in this scene (Mr. Home Tooke) has recorded his opinion, in explaining the philosophy of the preposition "along" "Thanks to Pitt, it is along of him that we not only keep our boroughs, but get Peerages into the bargain." "Curses on Pitt, it is along of him, that the free Constitution of this country is destroyed." "I suppose that Lord Lonsdale, Lord Elliott, and the father of Lady Bath, would not mean to impute any fault to the Minister in the
696
former of these sentences, though the people of England do certainly impute an inexpiable crime and treachery to him in the latter." Not only, then, have the greater part of these proprietors been thus already compensated in advance; but among whom have the millions of debt, under which this nation is now sinking, been distributed for the most part, but among these proprietors, their relations, friends, dependents, and tools? Still, though I will not be the proposer of compensation, if there were any danger of this Bill being lost for want of giving compensation, in the case of certain burgage tenure Boroughs where no Peerage had been obtained, I would think it better, much as I disapprove of the principle, to give compensation, than to allow this measure to be delayed for a single year; because I know that millions and millions would thereby be saved to the country; and because I would buy off an unjust claim, rather than be subject to the delay and danger of a long and expensive litigation. But, Sir, when I find from a petition presented to this House in 1793, that it was offered to be proved at our bar, that a majority of the House of Commons are returned by less than two hundred individuals, how can the nation afford any thing like compensation for the command of a majority of the House of Commons? The thing is beyond all price; it must be granted as a matter of grace from within these walls; or by the Holy God it will come, as the great Lord Chatham predicted; (and, in truth it seems advancing with rapid strides) with vengeance from without. Now, Sir, I will not trespass much longer upon the attention of the House; but before I conclude, I am desirous of noticing two arguments which have been urged against Reform; both of which I think it not improbable may be used against me this evening. I am aware, Sir, that it has been asked in this House by a late splendid orator, and with somewhat of triumph, by reason of the silence that followed the question, "If it be meant to carry back the Constitution to former times, name your period." The question, I must confess, always appeared to me sophistical. I am for renovating the Constitution in the important particulars I have referred to. I am for repairing the breaches which time has made in its walls.; and for conducting these repairs, and restorations upon

697
ancient principles—and am I to be told that my plan is absurd, or my proposal unreasonable, because I cannot mention the Anno Domini when those principles were all found co-existing and co-operating at the same time? Those principles were developed by degrees, and from time to time; and I confess I see no absurdity in saying that some of these ancient principles of the Constitution are to be sought for in Magna Charta. Some in the Act De tallagio non concedendo; some in the Statutes for regulating the frequent holding of Parliament; some in the Statutes for fining Sheriffs for mal-practices; some in the Statutes for fixing the qualification of Burgesses; some in those for securing frank and fair elections; and some in the Petition and Bill of Rights. All these principles I call ancient principles, and a return to them would be a return to ancient principles, although those principles do not bear the date of the same year. To tell me that I shall not have the benefit of this range of inquiry, but that I must confine myself and my observations to a particular year, is to play the dictator in argument, and to impose grievous conditions, indeed, upon the inquirer after truth. I wish to restore the Constitution to its proper form and energies, and to do it upon ancient principles—not the principles of this or that particular year of our Parliamentary history, but as they may be found diffusively, some in Magna Charta, some in this, some in that Writ of Summons; some in this, some in that Act of Parliament; but still forming a large aggregate of good Constitutional authorities for amending and repairing the Constitution of this House. The other argument which has been used against this measure, and to which I will very briefly advert is this; and strange to say it is one, which wears the mantle of Whig authority. It has been insisted that "No Reform can ever be peaceably carried otherwise than by a friendly Administration, and that all plans which will not bear the test of this condition, are either delusions or instruments of Revolution." Now, Sir, as I have before said, I really am disposed to hope that the present men in power may be inclined to look with no unfriendly eye upon such a measure. It must be evident to them that if an Administration will not peaceably concur in plans of Reform, and the system of abuse
698
shall reach its acmé, a convulsion must occur. Disorganization cannot be avoided, if they shall continue pertinaciously hostile to political amelioration, and shall: refuse to yield to the public urgency. Be these matters, however as they may, I can safely affirm, that nothing is further from my intention than to render my measure obnoxious to the charge of being an instrument of delusion, whatever other character it may attract. And now, Sir, as I strongly feel this public urgency, and as I am convinced that no one will be found at this time of day hardy enough to contend that the necessity of Reform is either the mere vapour of a dream, or the shadow of a shade, or empty whim and fanciful nothing, I do most confidently anticipate the proximate accomplishment of this great, this just, this wise, this Constitutional measure. Sir, lam aware that by adopting the course pursued by the hon. Member for Durham in 1821, by simply moving that this House will resolve itself into a Committee upon the state of the Representation, and then in that Committee proposing Resolutions embodying the principle of my Bill, I might possibly catch many votes, as there must doubtless be many hon. Members favourable to some extent of Reform, who will be unwilling to go the length I propose to carry the House. But, Sir, I should at this time of day deem such a manœuvre unworthy of the grand object I propose. I am for going straight forward at once to a clear and definite object. I am strongly upheld by precedent upon the main principle of my Bill; namely, the extension of the right of voting to all taxed householders; and the other provisions and repeals contained in it, appear to me so just and becoming, that no arguments will avail to warp my intentions, or induce me to cut down my Bill, to suit the views or interests of any party. I now move for leave to bring in a Bill to restore the Constitutional influence of the Commons in the Parliament of England.
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion.
Mr. Pendarvissaid, he was willing to bear his testimony to the necessity of Reform, in evidence of which he would state that the county of Cornwall was by no means benefitted by the number of Members that it returned to serve in Parliament. Until the noble Mover had communicated them to the House, he had not been aware of the provisions of his Bill, nor was he

699
prepared to go all the lengths of that measure. On the contrary, he was disposed to express his entire approbation of the resolutions proposed in 1809 by the hon. Member for Westminster, which would have given a right of voting to all who were in a condition to pay taxes.
Mr. Benettprofessed his admiration of the noble Marquis's speech generally, although he could not promise him his unconditional support. In the present calamitous state of the country, it was, in his opinion, an object of the first importance, to administer relief to the people, and most sincerely sorry was he to see that no disposition to grant that relief had been manifested by the Government. When he looked to the two past Sessions, with a grateful recollection of the important measures which they had passed, to the great benefit of the country, he had hoped that the present Session also would have been similarly distinguished. But he now saw that Parliamentary Reform must precede every suggestion for public advantage, and on that account he would support the Motion of the noble Marquis. People who were but lukewarm in the cause, or at heart disinclined to it, were accustomed to lay hold on the details of a proposed measure, and stop it in limine, under pretence of disliking such provisions. A similar advantage he trusted would not be taken on the present occasion. It was only fair that they should permit, the Bill to be introduced in the first instance, and then they might mould or oppose it as should hereafter be deemed expedient. Corruption had in these latter times advanced very rapidly, and it was now but too well known that the present Parliament did not enjoy the confidence of the people, The existing Government was an honest and well-meaning Government, heacknow-ledged, but no honest Government could be said to derive strength from the support of a Parliament which was not trusted. With respect to the conduct of the noble Marquis, he thought he deserved the highest credit for integrity and disinterestedness. It was not probable that he would long sit as a Member of that House, and in removing elsewhere, the success of his measure would operate to his prejudice, and he therefore advocated a Reform which must hereafter tend to the curtailment of his own power. Such a Reform, as far as he could judge, was at no period more necessary than now.
Sir Robert Wilsonsaid, that he had much doubted the noble Marquis's sincerity last Session, when he first introduced a Motion upon the subject, as it did not appear to him that he had really put on the armour of a Reformer. He then thought that the noble Marquis had ostensibly avowed himself a champion of Reform for the purpose of attaining better vantage ground to attack Ministers for having carried another measure which he conscientiously opposed. He had at present however, no longer any doubt of his perfect sincerity, and felt confident that if it were in his power to-morrow he would execute all that he had proposed. In short, he believed in the reformation of the noble Mover. The principle of the measure he should always support, as he was sent thither by his constituents for that purpose. If Reform had been long since accomplished he was convinced that many of the burthens under which the people suffered would have been withdrawn ere now, and many obnoxious laws would have been effaced. Some of the latter, indeed, had been repealed, owing to the liberality and wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was sorry not to see the Attorney General in his place, as he had wished to have made some allusion to the law of libel, which that right hon. Gentleman had been pledged, under the administration of Mr. Canning, to reform. This was assuredly one of those laws which ought to have been repealed, inflicting, as it did, transportation on a second conviction. If the Parliament had been reformed, we should not have heard of men being dispossessed of their property by a borough proprietor, because they had presumed to exercise their rights as free men. We should not then have heard of British citizens being treated on the footing of goods and chattels. The Members of that House were daily disputing as to whether the present distress was to be considered partial or general, but that question would have soon been set at rest if every Member were personally acquainted with the circumstances of his constituents, and able to declare them. He would advocate and support a fair and free representation, and he was not authorized by his constituents to go further. It occurred to him that the measure proposed was partially objectionable, as it gave somewhat too despotic a power to the Committee, who were permitted to denote, ad libitum, what

701
boroughs were fit for representation, and what not so. For his part, he was most agreeably surprised at the suggestion that Members should have wages, and certainly could not bring himself to resist what was so pleasantly recommended, [laughter] On the whole, he was favourable to the introduction of the Bill, and hoped that it would meet with a successful reception.
Lord Nugentexpressed his willingness to vote with the noble Marquis, as the defects in the representation were so numerous that he had long acknowledged the general necessity for Reform. His sentiments on this point he had already taken too many opportunities of expressing to require his doing so on the present occasion. Although he consented so far to support the Bill, he avowed himself to be comparatively ignorant of its details.
Mr. Hobhousewas anxious to hear what the opponents of the Motion could say to it, as hitherto they had heard nothing but arguments in its favour. He could feel no nicety in declaring that he had always voted for Reform, and always would vote for Reform, and all the measures that had the least resemblance to that under their consideration; and for this plain reason, viz. that he conceived the present system the worst possible system of representation that ever existed in a free Government. He would not take up the time of the House in urging the reasons for this opinion, but he would say that every day convinced him more and more of the truth: of this position. We had the forms of freedom with all the disadvantages of the most corrupt system of representation that was ever devised. He would vote for the Motion, because he was satisfied that the Bill could not possibly make us worse than we were, because the Parliament was not collected with the consent of the people but with their complete disassent; because it. was not assembled by their will, but against their conviction; and because the Members were not assembled to do the business of the people, but their own. He could not understand why some reformers should oppose the Motion, for it could not do otherwise than good. He did not understand the Bill, but he understood: that it was the object of the noble Lord to reform the House, and that was enough for him. He was anxious to vote for this measure, because the House had of late been fixing its attention on particular cases; and when it could fix its fangs
702
on a special case of corruption, to use the language of a noble Lord, they thought by sacrificing a rotten borough that they should satisfy the people. They were mistaken. The evil was not in one or two boroughs, it was in themselves. Si quœris monumentum, circumspice. Unhappily, however, they were rather disposed to look any where for the evil but in themselves. He was sorry that they should so waste their time, for they deluded nobody but themselves. The hon. Member for Clare said the other evening in speaking of a corrupt borough, that he would kill the wolf, but he (Mr. Hobhouse) quarrelled with the metaphor, as well as with the fact. While they were hunting this one poor wolf, they were allowing the choicest of their flock to be devoured; their homestead was invaded—it was in the possession of the enemy, and they satisfied themselves by hunting to death some one poor mangy feeble animal. He had lately met with an old paper, purporting to be a plan for a Reform of Parliament, supposed to be proposed for the Parliament of Charles the First's reign. It was found about eighty years ago among some old Parliamentary Papers—probably some of the Members had met with it as well as himself, but as it was pleasant he would just quote the heads of it. It was called a Scheme for the better governing the Nation,' and it pretended to have been submitted to the Protector, Oliver Cromwell. In the first place it recommended the total abolition of the House of Peers, as a body that was expensive, inconvenient, and unnecessary. Next to come to the House of Commons: In order to obviate the confusion of frequent elections by large bodies of men, and in order to put an end to bribery, it proposed that the Protector should have the nomination of all the Members, who were to be in all five hundred, and were to be the representatives of all the cities and counties of Great Britain. The Peers might be Members of this body, if the Protector pleased. The Members were not to purchase their seats for different counties, as was customary; that practice was to be repealed, and they were to pay down 1,0007. a-piece, which was to go to the Treasury. They were for this 1,000 l. to receive 350 1. a-year, paid out of the Treasury; and this sum was not to be paid if they absented themselves without leave,

703
or voted against the Protector. Each time they voted against him they were to be fined 51. for the first vote, 10 l. for the second, and so on. They were to pay a sum also for every speech they made against the Protector. Me would not enter into further details; but the conclusion of the scheme was, that the nation by it would be saved a great expense, and useless bribery, corruption, and terrorism would be done away. The question was, whether the Reform proposed would content the nation or not; and it was foolish cajolery for them to suppose that the nation would be long contented without Reform. The scheme he had mentioned was proposed seventy or eighty years ago; but it appeared as applicable now as at that time. The best Reform that could be introduced would not change the class of individuals who would sit in that House. The Representatives of the people would still be taken from the principal gentry, the merchants, and the best portion of the lower and middling classes. But a Reform would send them there on a different principle, and with different motives; and, so assembled, they would: act on different principles. He did not mean to deny that great talents—the highest talents of the nation—found their way into that House; it was there where the stake was to be played for; "and where the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together"—but individuals of the greatest power and talents came there, not to advocate the national interests, which they did only occasionally; they: came there to advocate their own or their patron's interest. They had always some sinister motives, tempting them to act for the disadvantage of the country. He would not further trouble the House than to express his determination to vote for every general measure of Parliamentary Reform.
Mr. Twisssaid, he should not have troubled the House if it were not that the hon. Member opposite had expressed his desire to hear what the opponents of the measure could say against it. He thought the opponents of the measure were absolved from saying anything against it by the opposition the Motion of the noble Marquis had already met with on the other: side of the House. All that had been said in favour of the Bill was the mere assertion—that the House did not represent the people. That assertion embraced
704
too large a question to allow him then to go fully into it; but he would meet the assertion by another. That House was constitutionally supposed to represent the people, and he was sure that it would oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Westminster admitted that the change he recommended would still bring the same class of persons into the House, so that they were called on to make a great change, the result of which was to be a House of Commons nothing different from the present. This reminded him of a story told of Mr. Sheridan, who was a little nervous during his last illness, and being one day annoyed by the servant running against the plate warmer, and making a great noise, he swore at him; the fellow apologised by saying that he had broken nothing. "What!" said Sheridan, "do you make all that noise for nothing?" So the Gentlemen who supported this Bill would make all this noise and excite all this disturbance for nothing. All those who had followed the noble Lord, and understood his plan of Reform, found fault with it; those who did not understand it voted for it. His hon. friend who said that no change could be for the worse, was quite consistent in voting for it. Those who thought with his noble friend would vote for the Bill; but those who did not go all his lengths, and those who did understand the measure, would vote against it. Some honourable Members doubted the sincerity of the noble mover; and though he had no suspicions of that kind himself, he could not avoid supposing that his present Bill was intended as a mockery of the whole question of Reform—it was a snake in the grass. Between the satire of the noble Lord and the sarcasms of the hon. Member for Westminster, he thought the opponents of the measure had no occasion to come forward to oppose it; they might leave it to be defeated by its friends
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, who had attempted to throw a ridicule upon the Motion of the noble Lord, had so utterly mistaken the purport of the paper read by his hon. colleague, that he seemed to think the paper an irony on the present state of the House. The hon. Gentleman had mistaken, and perverted, and misunderstood the argument of his hon. colleague, who had admitted, as he (Sir F. Burdett) ad-

705
mitted, that the House was composed of men of as enlightened understandings and as addicted to the English principle of freedom, as could be found collected together in any part of the world,—a compliment which he was willing to pay them. But his hon. friend (Mr. Hobhouse) had contended that they were returned to the House under an influence which rendered them incapable of exerting the noble faculties of their minds, and made them injurious instead of beneficial to the country they belonged to. His hon. friend contended that notwithstanding the admitted ability of the Members, they must, under existing circumstances, be thus influenced; but that under different circumstances the result would be not the same, but the very reverse, and that there would then be no conflict on their part with the public interests. If a person were returned against the law of England, against the Constitution of England, and against those most sacred privileges which were founded upon the acknowledged sovereignty of the people of England, where was the security of the people? It was a high breach of the Constitution and of the privileges of the Commons of England, that a Peer should interfere in the election of a Member of that House. That was the principle which stood recorded in the Journals of that House; and it was owing to a Petition lying on their Table, from a society of patriots calling themselves the Friends of the People, and of which society Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey were Members, which Petition a right hon. Gentleman, whose loss he deeply lamented (Mr. Tierney), was said to have drawn up on the part of the Friends of the People,—that paper, in the year 1793, declared, that one hundred and fifty Members of that. House were returned, not only by the interference, but on the nomination of a very small number of Peers. The Petitioners offered to prove this fact, at the bar of the House. The House was much the same in these days as at that time. He deeply regretted that that right hon. Gentleman did not now live to vote on this question, as he always did vote, and always stood forward with great ability, in defence of those fundamental rights of the people of England which he (Sir F. Burdett) advocated. With respect to the Motion before the House, he was bound to say, that he could not comprehend at once all its details; but he understood it to be a great measure of
706
Reform, which the noble Marquis had supported by very considerable ability, and he understood that its object was to endeavour to restore to the people of England a share of the Constitution of the country, to which they had as good a right as a Peer had to his title, or the King to his seat upon the Throne. He regretted to see that, the democratic branch of the Constitution did not retain its proper share of power, and every endeavour to restore the liberty of the people he would do all in his power to advance. The very denial of the House to disfranchise East Retford, was a refusal to adopt the plan of Lord Chatham, to infuse new blood into our crazy Constitution, to enable it to bear its infirmities. When it was considered that a great portion of the talent and understanding of the country was not permitted to find a vent for its opinions in that House,—when great abilities, and every thing enlightened in the empire were excluded by the present system of things,—and when the House absolutely threw away an opportunity to gain some credit with the people, by the disfranchisement of what was called in that House, a corrupt borough, but which he (Sir F. Burdett), did not consider more corrupt than many others, and when the House refused to admit representatives from the great town of Birmingham, and as a plaister to the sore, proposed to throw open the borough to the hundred of Bassetlaw, the people might naturally feel irritated at the House for refusing to grant any concession to their moderate, perhaps too moderate, wishes. He trusted that this Motion would unite the whole country with the people of Birmingham in demanding that fair and full Reform which the people of England were entitled to, and a redress of that worst of grievances, a corrupt representation of the people. He trusted that the noble Lord would persevere in his schemes of Reform, and that he (Sir F. Burdett), after thirty-five years of unremitted efforts, might see the object accomplished. Notwithstanding the length of his career in that undertaking", let the standard of Reform be again raised, and he would be as ardent as ever he was, and prepared to enlist under its banners, be they reared by whom they might. The only struggle really worth making, was for a Reform in Parliament. The only distinction in that House should be those Members who were in favour of Reform and those who were not—those for the people

707
of England and those against them; that, was the only true distinction, and every man would know where to take his place. After the termination of that calamitous reign, the reign of George 3rd.,—he called it calamitous in respect to its foreign policy, its encroachments upon the liberties of the people, and the burthens of taxation cast upon the country, which, in spite of the virtues of the man, made that a most calamitous reign for the country, what he would ask was the situation of the country? Plunged in distress and overwhelmed with debt. He had gone through the whole process under the present system of representation, and a most ruinous one it had been. Early in life he came into that House in order to defend the Constitution of England. He purchased his seat of a borough-monger. He purchased it of the Duke of Newcastle. He was no patron of his; he took his money, and by purchase he obtained a right to speak in the most public place in England. With his views, and with his love of the liberty of his country, he did not grudge the sacrifice he made for that commanding consideration. If he had abused the right he had purchased, and passed through corruption to the honours of the Peerage, he should not enjoy the satisfaction he then felt. But he felt it to be a greater honour to be one of the people of England, in whose hearts the love of liberty could never be deracinated, than to enjoy the highest title which it was in the power of the most profligate Minister to bestow. Having thus gone through the whole system of corruption, he could not help having a fellow-feeling for the electors of East Retford, who had had the good sense at least to sell themselves, not others. Having been detected, it was very well for the House to punish the offence; but who could say "I am free?" He then felt a great compunction towards the electors of East Retford; for their behaviour, so far from being a mischief, was really a mitigation of the system. It seemed as if the House were acting on the principles of ancient Sparta, where theft was no offence, but the detection was punished. It was the mal-adroitness, not the commission of the act, that was prohibited,—not the crime, but the want of address in committing it. The House was in the same predicament. The Members for rotten boroughs were nominated by Peers, and of course they could not oppose the opinions of their patrons. A man of honour could
708
not sit in the House and vote against the opinion of the Peer who nominated him. By such a principle the people were excluded from the House of their Representatives, though they gave them power. True it was that some Gentlemen said "we represent the people of England at large" this was a fallacy which reconciled many consciences. Such was the mode in which elections were managed, that no person could stand for a county without being-ruined, or at least run into difficulties, He (Sir F. Burdett.) had gone through all this; he had stood for a county, though he would not have given two-pence for the representation of that county, his object having been to expose the abominable system and the oppressive tyranny of solitary confinement in England. To expose those abuses it was that he stood upon the hustings at Brentford, though he really would not have given two-pence for the representation of the county. He could have got returned for East Retford at a much cheaper rate, and have been a more independent man. He had also gone through the remedial operation, as it was called, of the Grenville Act; so that, he had sounded all the shoals and shallows of the system, and it was not wonderful that he should be a great advocate for an alteration. The plain question was this—ought the House to be an assembly of retainers of the Crown, or of representatives of the people of England? He would put it upon that issue. At the end of the American war there appeared a person whose eloquence and talents would have enabled him to restore the country, but who proved the remote cause of all our present distress. Mr. Pitt burst forth with an eloquence which dazzled the judgment, but there was another cause which conciliated more partisans than even his eloquence and his abilities. The strongest hold he had on the partiality of the people of England, was his advocacy of the principle he (Sir F. Burdett) was then advocating. It was Parliamenatry Reform which lifted Mr. Pitt to the cabinet and to political power. Mr. Pitt told the people, when the taxes were only 15,000,000 l. a-year, that without a Reform in Parliament they might expect fresh wars, corruption of every kind, and an increase of the public burthens. He had afterwards; fulfilled his own predictions. He (Sir F. Burdett) had experienced still more of the operation of the system than

709
he had mentioned. He had been a convicted libeller. Yes a convicted libeller; and he should not scruple to venture again, when he conceived that the rights and liberties of the people demanded the risk. He did not forget, however, that by the new Law of Libel, a law which was a disgrace to the Statute-book, he might, by a second conviction, suffer the punishment of transportation. For aught he knew he might again be tried for libel; and if he were convicted, as convicted he most probably would be—for he knew not of what stuff juries must be composed, to return such verdicts as they had recently seen—he might be sent to pass the rest of his life at Botany Bay, or at any other foreign dependency of England, and if he quitted England it would be to him of little importance where he might end his then miserable life. That would not, however, deter him; nor would it, he trusted, deter any honest Englishman, from pursuing that course which was dictated by a sense of public duty. Though he was not willing to invite any man to court danger unnecessarily, nor to oppose himself single-handed to the united force of a powerful, and, perhaps, a vindictive Government, he would himself never quail before it, nor stand in awe of our atrocious Libel Act. Say it he must, be the consequences to himself what they might, that as the House was now constituted, our personal liberty, the liberty of the press, every liberty that we enjoyed, were enjoyed, one and all, as mere sufferance. What the right hon. Secretary might be inclined to do,—what his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General might be instigated by the Cabinet to do, he could not venture to predict. Of his hon. and learned friend he wished to speak with affection—even with gratitude—for he had been his able, and honest, and intrepid defender. He could not believe that his hon. and learned friend had instituted the late prosecutions of his own accord, he could not believe that he had followed them up, except with great compulsion; but be that and be all things as they might, he hoped that he should have the fortitude never to desert those principles of Constitutional liberty which he had set out in life by asserting, and which he was not reluctant to die in defending. He thought that no objection could be made in the present stage to the proposition of the noble Marquis. It was
710
so usual to allow a Bill to be introduced into the House that he could not conceive it likely that any opposition would be made to the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill. He did not mean to say, that the measure met altogether with his approbation, for it did not go to the extent to which he himself should be inclined to push it. He had himself proposed two modes of Reform, one of which consisted in giving the right of suffrage to all persons who paid direct taxes in the shape of either church-rates or poor-rates. Let that mode be adopted, or any other mode, for infusing fresh spirit into the House, and he should be content. He understood that there was already on the order-book a Motion for giving the right of election to the great manufacturing towns of England which were at present unrepresented. He trusted if that Motion were carried, there would be another proposed for communicating the same right to the great, manufacturing towns of Scotland, which were in a similar predicament. But the representation of all our large towns was so absurd in practice, and formed such an anomaly in our Constitution, that the whole system deserved to be revised. Some hon. Gentlemen had talked much that evening of assimilating the law of England and Ireland. Now, with regard to Ireland, it should be recollected that. Ireland already enjoyed a reformed representation, and that Ireland as now represented—for she had got rid of the small boroughs—would form the model of an efficient Reform for England. It was not, however, his duty to go into that discussion at present: it was sufficient for him to feel now as strongly as ever he did, the imperative necessity of Reform. He hoped,—and from the information which he had recently received from different parts of the country, he believed,—that the people of England were at last beginning to bestir themselves, and to place sufficient, confidence in their own power of exertion. He understood that petitions would be sent to the House so backed by ability and union,—such union as he had recently seen with pleasure exhibited at Birmingham,—and mixed up with so much caution and discretion, that it would be impossible for the House not to take this important question into its most serious consideration, with the honest intention of adopting such a Reform as was suited to the state of the country.
The Attorney Generalrose to address the House, but his commencing observations were inaudible, and during the whole of his Speech he was very indistinctly heard, owing to the emotion which he appeared to feel. After some remarks upon the Motion of the noble Marquis, he proceeded to say, that he had not risen so much for the sake of speaking upon it as for the sake of observing on the extraordinary conduct of his hon. friend opposite, who, in a debate which had no allusion to him (the Attorney General) personally, had thought proper to cast the weight of his heavy censure upon him. He thought that as there were two Motions already upon the order book, which would afford some regular opportunity for discussing his conduct, he might have expected that at least, in candour, his friends—from his enemies he could expect nothing but hostility—would have abstained from introducing such a discussion until he had received due notice of their intention. But as his hon. friend the Member for Westminster had introduced him to the notice of the House, he would commence by assuring his hon. friend that there was no act of his professional life on which he looked back with greater satisfaction than that in which he had had the distinguished honour of appearing as his defender. This he could at least say, that whether he had defended his hon. friend ably or not, he had done it honestly, zealously, and sincerely, for he felt at that time, and he felt now, that the prosecution which was instituted against his hon. friend was a prosecution which ought never to have been instituted at all. He would not shrink from stating his opinion upon that prosecution at all times and in all places; but if his hon. friend would look into the proceedings to which he had just alluded, and would impartially consider all that had been done or said in the course of them, he was persuaded that his hon. friend, for whom he felt the utmost regard and affection, would find that he had neither done nor said any thing inconsistent with the principles on which he had defended him. He could not accept the compliment which his honourable friend had wished to pay him, in supposing that the late prosecutions had been forced upon him by the compulsion of the Cabinet. Those prosecutions required to be looked upon not incidentally in the course of another debate, they were of sufficient
712
importance to be considered by themselves: they formed part of a subject which deserved consideration as a whole, and as a whole they must be considered, in order to see the reasons on which the verdicts were founded. Those prosecutions—he said it without reserve—were approved of by him, for he thought them necessary to the well being of the community. Such was his humble judgment,—for he arrogated to himself no superiority of judgment over other men.—but as an honest man, he thought, after the completion of the great measure of last Session, which in spite of all the warmth with which it was opposed was now working most beneficially for the country, that he saw in a portion of the press a disposition to licentiousness and falsehood which rendered it necessary to keep it in some check. Unless his hon. friend meant that the liberty of the press should become the tyranny of the press, and that no man should assert his right of private judgment except under the peril of being attacked by the most wicked and virulent falsehood, both in his private and in his public capacity, he must admit that there were occasions upon which some castigation must be administered to the offences of the press. There was, in his opinion, no means of destroying the licentiousness of the press, except by showing that it contained in itself the destructiveness of its real liberty. As to the Libel Law, winch the hon. Baronet had denounced with so much warmth and justice, he would only observe, that he had been in the ranks of those who had both spoken and voted against it, and that if an opportunity were given him, he would be ready to fall into the same ranks again. Let him, however, remind his hon. friend the Member for Westminster, if he had not entirely forgotten what had fallen from so humble an individual as himself, that one of the arguments which he had used against that Bill, and in which he had the concurrence of several of his learned friends whom he then saw in the House, was, that the licentiousness of the press might be corrected by the law as it then stood, and that it wanted no other correction. The House was, however, of a different opinion; and thinking some other corrective necessary, passed the Act in question. He was not ashamed to say in public—what all men were ready enough to say in private,—that no single individual could now resist the tyranny of

713
the press; so that we were come to that condition so well described by the Roman historian, in which "nec mala nec remedia pati possumus." In what he had said, he did not wish to offend any man. If he spoke with warmth—and it was perhaps impossible for an individual, assailed as he had been, to speak otherwise—he meant no disrespect either to his hon. friend the Member for Westminster, or to any other hon. Member who heard him. He could not, however, accept the insidious compliment which had been paid him, when it was said, that he had been instigated by the Cabinet to institute the recent prosecutions. He had already refused, and he must refuse again, to shelter himself under so mean-spirited a defence. In joining the present administration, it was distinctly understood that he was not to abandon any opinion and not to compromise any principle. He had joined it with the sincere approbation of his warmest political friends. In so doing he had nothing of which to repent; no reproach had been cast upon him, and he had the proud satisfaction of reflecting that he deserved none. He would not remain for a single hour in office with any administration which should presume to order him to perform the duties of his situation in any respect contrary to the dictates of his own conscience. He thought that the press of this country ought to enjoy full liberty, unshackled by any previous censure, but at the same time he thought that the press would not long enjoy that moral influence which it ought to possess, if every opinion or every falsehood which it promulgated were treated with indifference,—if its rhapsodies in praise of some men and its calumnies in depreciation of others, were both to be considered as idle words full of sound but meaning nothing. He wanted no new law, he repeated, for the correction of the errors of the press. He was satisfied with the Libel Law of Mr. Fox, which when first passed after a struggle continued for several years, was hailed as a great triumph by the friends of popular discussion. That law gave to the jury and took from the judge the power of determining what was and what was not a libel. He believed that there was not at present a judge upon the bench who would not leave it to the jury to determine whether any writing accused of being libellous were a libel or not. To the tribunal of a jury he had appealed in
714
the recent prosecutions: they had found the publications which he had brought before them to be libels, and he would venture to say that if his hon. friend the Member for Westminster had been a Member of those juries, he should have had his concurrence in their verdicts.
Lord John Russelsaid, that he had known his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) for many years, and had never known him profess any opinions but such as were favourable to the cause of freedom. He should therefore wait to hear his explanation of his conduct in the recent prosecutions before he ventured to give any opinion upon it. He could not, however, refrain from remarking, that there had lately appeared in the newspapers words attributed—perhaps incorrectly—to his hon. and learned friend, which, if they were correct, he must say could not be looked upon without regret. It was only the other day that he read in the newspapers words said to have been used by his hon. and learned friend, which led him to suppose that his hon. and learned friend objected to the public's canvassing the opinions of judges and of juries. He hoped that his hon. and learned friend would be able to explain these words away at the proper time. The noble Lord then proceeded to state, that in voting with the noble Marquis upon the present occasion, he did so not upon the grounds upon which the noble Marquis had put it, but upon the grounds upon which he had not put it. He voted for it not because he thought that it was a question which ought to be referred to a Commit-tee of twenty-one, but because he thought that it was a question which ought to be referred to a Committee of the whole House. The noble Lord ridiculed the idea that the House had acted unfairly to such boroughs as it had disfranchised for corrupt practices, inasmuch as it was notorious that practices equally corrupt prevailed in every part of the country. There was no ground for applying, as the noble Lord had done, the hacknied quotation,
"Dat veniam corvis—vexat censura columbas."
The columbœ, who received 20 l. for their votes, and then went and swore that they had received nothing, as was done at Grampound, could not be considered as very innocent doves, [a laugh]
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he was unwilling to give his vote unaccompanied by a few observations, lest he should be deemed

715
to be acting disrespectfully to the noble Marquis who had brought the Motion forward. But as he disapproved both of the object which the noble Marquis had in view, and of the mode in which he sought to accomplish it, he should imitate the fairness of the noble Marquis himself by declaring that he should give his most decided opposition to this Bill, in its very first stage. He certainly did not expect to have had a general discussion that evening on the question of Reform, and he thought that the desultory speech of the hon. Member for Westminster was a sufficient proof that it was not convenient to have such a subject thus irregularly discussed. The Bill had a most extraordinary title, it professed to be a Bill not for preventing but for regulating abuses in the elections of Members to serve in Parliament. The House then was called on, not to put down but. to regulate and preserve abuses by the noble Marquis's Bill. The speech made in support of it by the hon. Member for Westminster was particularly open to the objection that there was in it "eloquentiœ satis, sapientiœ parvum" [a laugh]; for though there was in it of declamation much, of argument there was less than he had ever heard in any former speech of the hon. Baronet. If he had stepped into the House accidentally, and without knowing the subject of the debate, he should have supposed the hon. Baronet to have been delivering an eloquent speech, not in favour of, but in opposition to a Reform in Parliament. The hon. Baronet admitted though the House was improperly constituted that it contained men of the greatest talent in the country—individuals, whose respectability in private life could not be questioned—Members, who, to use the hon. Baronet's own phrase, were addicted to all the qualities which were calculated to raise the character of the country, and who were equal to any others in any part of Europe. It was an important admission coming from the hon. Baronet that the present system of representation assembled men of eminence, talent, and private virtue, [Sir F. Burdett nodded assent] actuated by the purest views; [Sir F. Burdett, "No, no;"] and what rendered this admission the more extraordinary, was, that the hon. Baronet concluded it by contending that the mode in which these eminent, and able, and virtuous men were sent here, vitiated all their good qualities, and rendered them noxious and dangerous.
716
When the hon. Baronet entered into a history of the Constitution of the House, his arguments were all in favour of the small boroughs. The hon. Baronet was one of those individuals who would go down to posterity as one of the most distinguished men of his day: and yet he had told them, "When I was first returned to this House, I was returned for a small borough, owing no obligation to the party who returned me;" and he had then proceeded to contrast his election with that small borough with his election for a populous county. He said, "I was a candidate for the representation of a large county. I carried my election at a large expense; and yet" he added, twice over, "for the honour of representing that county, I would not give two-pence." Under such circumstances, seeing that the hon. Baronet valued his election for a small borough more than he did his election for a populous county,—seeing that Mr. Pitt, whose talents the hon. Baronet admitted to have been sufficient to render him, if he had been properly disposed, the saviour of his country, had first entered Parliament for Appleby, and that many other eminent men had made their first Parliamentary debut in a similar manner,—seeing that Mr. Fox, when excluded from the representation of a large town, found refuge in a small borough,—he thought that the hon. Baronet and the House ought to weigh well the practical good effected by the existence of these small boroughs before they involved them all in one sweeping condemnation. As to the Motion of the noble Marquis, he was quite certain that the House would never agree to it. The noble Marquis moved that the House should devolve on a Committee of twenty-one Members chosen by ballot, the power of destroying all the boroughs which that Committee should suppose were incapacitated by corruption, or otherwise, from sending Members to Parliament. He would never be a party to that wholesale depreciation of the Elective franchise; and he would never give his assent even to the first stage of a Bill which conferred such power upon any Committee. A Committee so constituted might inflict great wrong and injustice. It might be a Ministerial, it might be an Opposition Committee—but be it what it might, he would never consent to allow any Committee to report to any Secretary of "State, that a borough had forfeited its

717
privilege, and to order him to give notice in the Gazette, that such a borough had forfeited its share in the representation. Next he objected to the noble Marquis's plan for paying Members of Parliament. They had that night been occupied in discussing the propriety of Reform; and yet the Bill which was to effect that reform contained a proposition, enabling them to appropriate to themselves 250,000 l. annually—a very modest proposal, and one well calculated to recommend the House to public confidence. The noble Marquis was for allowing two guineas a-day to every borough, and four guineas a-day to every county, Member; thus showing that he estimated a county Member at double the value of a borough Member. Now taking three guineas as the average sum paid to each Member, supposing the House to sit six days in every week, and the Session to last for twenty-five weeks, the sum annually paid to six hundred and fifty-eight Members would amount to a little more than 250,000 l. ["Hear," and laughter] On these grounds, and thanking the noble Lord for the manly and straightforward manner in which he declined proposing the appointment of a Committee for the purpose of catching a few stray votes—thanking him for having openly declared his plan of Reform—he would state, with equal fairness and equal sincerity, that it was his intention to take the sense of the House on the Motion, and that he was opposed to bringing in the Bill.
Viscount Howickobserved that, from the manner in which the benches of that House were filled, it was impossible to expect any great object, for the benefit of the people would be carried. The hon. Baronet below him (Sir F. Burdett) had not been able, with all his great talents, his well-known perseverance, and his tried integrity, to prevent the passing of any one of those measures which had brought the country to its present state. Mr. Pitt, who commenced his career as a reformer, soon deserted the interests of the people. His great energies were first displayed in the strenuous support of those interests, but that he soon found was a losing game. He saw that the voice of the people in that House was weak and powerless, and that the voice of another class, which had been raised to influence, was all-powerful there; and to that class he attached himself. They now beheld before them a
718
large portion of that party on whom Mr. Pitt relied, loudly clamouring for what was little less than national bankruptcy. [hear] Such was the state of the House, that it might be justly asserted that the people of England were not represented in Parliament. The consequence was, that a system of profligacy and extravagance had been pursued which had brought the nation to the verge of ruin; and those who caused it were now afraid to meet and encounter the distress. They came down to that House almost in despair, and to relieve themselves they called for the sacrifice of the national faith; they were anxious to defraud the national creditor of what was due to him under the most solemn pledges, [hear] He knew that this was not a very popular feeling on the subject, but he could not avoid stating his opinion boldly. To him it appeared that nothing could essentially serve the country but a perfect and complete reform of that House.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he certainly should not have risen at that late hour, had he not been pointedly alluded to by his hon. friend, the Member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse). On a former occasion he did most cheerfully join in hunting down the mangy wolf, and now he would as readily join in the pursuit of the remaining portion of the flock.—[This allusion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to the conclusion of a speech of his own in the discussion some days before, on a Motion respecting the Borough of East Retford.] If they had scotched one wolf, they certainly ought not to let the others escape. As for the Committee of twenty-one, he was as little disposed to support it as the right hon. Secretary. He was decidedly of opinion that no authority short of the Legislature itself should possess the power of disfranchising Boroughs or Cities, —but these details were matters of secondary importance—he looked to the principle of the measure; it was a Bill to secure the popular representation of the people, and beyond that it was a Bill to exclude placemen and pensioners from Parliament; as such he would support it, though he confessed that the plan for paying the Representatives of the people did not meet his approbation. He neither wished for wages from the people, nor for salaries from the crown. But when the right hon. Secretary talked of the wages as so likely to alienate the confidence of the people, he should have remembered

719
that seventy-eight Members of that House received 180,000 l. of the public money. No doubt all these were right hon. men, and conscientious men; and yet, when any of them gave a conscientious vote, they felt heavy consequences.; witness the fate of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo. Whether a Groom of the Bedchamber, or holding a higher or a lower office, the moment he presumed to give a conscientious vote, that moment the hand of the King himself struck his name out from amongst the household. Within a short space he was in and out of office; he voted for his conscience and against his interest, and immediately thereupon a new writ is moved for the place represented by his successor in office, who, no doubt, was also a conscientious man; but let him beware how he yielded to the dictates of his conscience. If he dared to oppose the Minister he must resign office instantly. As a representative of the people, he must denounce—his sense of duty called upon him to denounce—any man who, for his services in that House, took money either from the Crown or from any other quarter; but though opposed to the principle of payment, he would call upon the House, in the name of the country, to accede to the great principle of popular representation. It was a matter of the most complete notoriety, that two hundred and forty-three Members of that House were nominated by Peers, one hundred and fifty-nine by Commoners, and that twenty-two sat for Treasury boroughs; thus there were four hundred and twenty-four with scats in that House, who were anything but the Representatives of the people;—One hundred and thirty-four were all who really represented the people. This statement he made from information obtained so far back as the year 1793; humble and insignificant an individual as he was in himself, he would challenge any man to meet him on that ground, and he would pledge himself to prove the accuracy of his statement. Since the period to which he referred there had been an accession to the House of one hundred Members, and certainly that circumstance did not tend to augment the proportion of representatives of the people. Among the Irish Members he could find only twenty-one who were popularly elected, or rather, he should say, who were not nominated by individuals. Now the question which the House would decide by its vote that
720
night was, whether or not that state of the representation was constitutional or otherwise. He would say, that all who paid taxes directly or indirectly were entitled to a vote in the election of the Representatives who were to dispose of those taxes. As a radical reformer he would always maintain that principle. He would, as a reformer, appeal in support of it to the great principle of democratic liberty which made England the great and productive country which she had been for centuries. France and Spain were broader and not less fertile, but it was the great spirit of democracy which made the land of smaller dimensions overtop those which possessed the blessings of nature and all physical advantages, without the moral benefit of free institutions—yes, he would repeat, it was that democratic spirit which had imparted to her all of national glory that she ever possessed. He would not refer to ancient States—those would be mere schoolboy recollections; but he would ask, what gave to Venice eight hundred years of glory abroad and happiness at home, but the same democratic spirit? What but the same spirit gave four hundred years of freedom to the wild mountains of Switzerland, and enabled her sons by their irresistible valour to bear down the iron chivalry of Europe? What gave the States of Northern America, the prosperity, the wealth, and the solid glory which were raising them to an elevated station amongst the nations of the earth? what but the spirit of democratic freedom! That spirit then he would invoke for the resuscitation of England, for giving security, to the Throne, and placing the national prosperity upon a permanent basis. What was the result of the present system? They had 800,000,000 l. of debt—and then to meet that, they had a pleasant speech from the right hon. Secretary, and a stale jest from the hon. Member for Wootton Basset (Mr. Twiss) towards whom he meant no personal disrespect; that was all the public would have in the newspapers to-morrow. Of the great principles of Reform, he had that night heard nothing which could induce him to alter his views. He never could be brought to believe that two hundred individuals were better judges of the interests of the people than the people themselves. He hoped that as the French Budget had been rejected, so would the

721
Supplies be refused by that House till the prospect of a liberal system were held out. Every day he lived he was the more and more convinced that nothing could be more debasing than the present system of Representation. When he saw Gentlemen otherwise of the highest honour, from the mere contact and association corrupted to the purposes of an oligarchical tyranny, he could not bring himself to speak of the system but with abhorrence and disgust. He raised his voice on behalf of the people; he called upon the House, which had shorn the talons of the Monarchy, to use its power to cut short the fell fangs of the oligarchical faction which lorded it over the land. Let the House but do that, and it would have little difficulty in giving to the Constitution its pristine and genuine form.
Mr. Broughamcommenced by declaring, that he considered the conduct of the hon. Members for Aylesbury, Cornwall, and Wiltshire to be unfair, they having stated that, although they approved of certain portions of the noble Marquis's Resolution, and would vote for his having leave to bring in his Bill, yet that they did so with the intention of opposing it at some future stage of its progress through that House. He also considered that this project of suffering the measure to exist for one moment, that they might strangle it in the next, was senseless and ridiculous. He would pursue a different course. It was not because he disapproved of some points in that Resolution that he was to pronounce a sweeping condemnation of it, for there were others which met with his most decided approbation; and if he looked upon the question with no other view but that one, he should feel himself bound to give the noble Marquis his vote. He differed certainly from the noble Marquis in the first part of his project, as far as any one man possibly could differ from another. He also disagreed with him as to the policy of wages or payment for Members; yet, when he looked to other parts of that Bill, if he did not falsify all his just professions—if he did not run counter to all his former votes, he could not refuse to give the noble Marquis the opportunity of bringing in his Bill, and so afford him the chance of having its provisions carried into effect. Amongst the desirable objects of this Bill, he found that all copyholders were to have a right to vote—that the
722
expense of elections were to be diminished, by permitting votes to be taken at places immediately in the neighbourhood of the voters—that the Scotch cities and counties were to be placed upon the footing of those of England—a great Reform applied to that portion of our representative system which was completely without defence. In England they talked of a virtual representation—they held up one point, namely, the representation of counties, as a defence for the more exceptionable part; but in Scotland there was no such pretence. In all Scotland there was no trace, no sign, no vestige; of free Representation; the cities and counties there were worse than the most rotten boroughs of England, for they had there the complicated and peculiar evil of an election within an election, wherein both were bad. Of all the impure species of return, that by the votes of non-resident freemen was the worst; and all must agree that, if there be a safe Reform—a Reform which should unite all voices, it would be that of cutting off non-resident voters, [hear, hear] There were also other parts of the measure deserving of his warmest praise, and which ought to ensure the vote—he would not say of a majority, but. of a very large minority, of the House in its favour. His own opinion was, that the Motion would have been better and more acceptably produced under the form of a general Resolution than under that of a specific plan. He begged, therefore, to suggest to the noble Marquis, some alteration to this effect. Such an Amendment would be equally direct for its object, and not incompatible with the noble Marquis's design, because it would lead to a specific measure. For these reasons he thought it would be better, and less dangerous to the great question of Parliamentary Reform, if the noble Marquis would permit him to substitute for his Motion, a general Resolution, to the effect that this House is of opinion that a Reform in the Representation of the Country is expedient. He proposed this, not for the foolish purpose of catching a few votes. For who could suppose that it signified one straw whether the question were lost by ten votes more, or by ten votes less. If any man were so stupid, so senseless, so grossly ignorant of the resources of that great question, as to fancy it could be influenced by the paltry difference of a

723
few votes, he should hold his opinion as of less worth than even this difference between the ten votes more or the ten votes less, [cheers] But he felt that the Motion of the noble Marquis was encompassed with many difficulties, which he was anxious to remove. The measure was harnessed with details disagreeable to many persons, who might fear to vote for it, lest by so doing they might appear to sanction those obnoxious details. Thus the noble Marquis had placed those Gentlemen in this predicament—either they must vote for the Bill, and so leave it in doubt whether they did or did not approve of all the details, or else they were subjected to the still more painful alternative of voting against the measure, and so laying themselves open to the suspicion of having relaxed in their zeal for a cause which they had for so long a time professed to advocate. He, therefore, most respectfully begged to offer his humble efforts in substituting a general Amendment for the special Motion. Before sitting down, he wished to allude to some expressions which had fallen from the hon. Member for Wootton Basset (Mr. Twiss). He had heard with infinite indignation that hon. Gentleman charge the noble Marquis who introduced the question (as, he thought in a very zealous and able manner), with having made an ironical Speech in favour of the proposition—and also charge the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) with having supported the motion in a tone of more stern irony than that adopted by the noble Marquis. The hon. Member had, with very questionable taste, alluded to the noble Mover, and the appellation of the snake in the grass which he had applied to the Bill of the noble Marquis was unwarranted by the frank and honourable manner in which the noble Mover had avowed his conversion. If his hon. and learned friend would bring forward, with such distinguished talent as the noble Lord had displayed that night, Motions for the good of his country, or, when others brought them forward, if he would support them with one half the ability and sincerity of his hon. friend the Member for Westminster, he would hail, with pleasure, his acquisition to the patriot list of that House.
Mr. H. Twisssaid, he had not the remotest idea of imputing to the noble Marquis any such feeling as the hon. and
724
learned Gentleman adverted to, and therefore he did not deserve the unjust, erroneous, and he would say, unbecoming-remarks that were made of him.
Mr. Broughamcertainly did hear the hon. and learned Member speak of two sorts of irony—the one more ludicrous, the other more stern. As to his observation being unbecoming, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should thank him for giving him an opportunity of explaining a point, with respect to which, but for that explanation, it would appear that the whole House would have been totally and entirely mistaken.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he felt it to be his duty, being called on to give his vote one way or another, to declare, that he would vote against the Bill. He could not support a Bill now, which he knew he must oppose hereafter.
Colonel Daviessaid, that the Amendment was general, and the hon. Gentleman might vote for that.
Mr. Maberly Mr. Maberly, though a Reformer, could not support the Motion. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Knaresborough would move his Amendment, which he would support. If he did not, he would leave the House without voting.
Lord Althorpdeclared, that he would vote for the Motion of his noble relation, if it were pressed to a division; but, agreeing with his hon. and learned friend, he thought the best course would be to adopt the Amendment. He therefore moved, "That all the words after the word 'that' be omitted, in order to insert the following:—"It is the opinion of this House that a Reform in the Representation of the people is necessary."
The House then divided on the Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," when the numbers were—For retaining the words 160; For omitting them to make room for the Amendment 57; Majority 113. The original Motion was then negatived.

List of the Majority and also of the Minority.

MAJORITY.

Atkins, Alderman

Astley, Sir J. D. Bart.

Ashurst, W. H.

Ashley, Hon. W.

Apsley, Lord

A'Court, Capt. E. H.

Alexander, J.

Ashley, Lord

Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.

Acland, Sir T.

Arbuthnot, hn. Col. H,

Bankes, H.

725

Bankes, W.

Greene, T. G.

Bankes, G.

Hill, Sir R.

Batley, H.

Hill, Lord A.

Buxton, T. F.

Holmes, W.

Burrell, W.

Hay, A.

Benson, R.

Hope, W. H.

Byron, T.

Hope, hon. Sir A.

Barclay, C.

Herries, rt. hon. C

Barclay, D.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Bright, H.

Holmesdale, Lord

Baring, B.

Hastings, Sir C.

Boyle, hon. J.

Irving, J.

Campbell, J.

Jones, J.

Campbell, A.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Cust, hon. E.

King, Hon. R.

Castlereagh, Lord

Kekewich, S. T.

Carrington, Sir E.

Knox, hon. T.

Clive, hon. R.

Lygon, hon. H. B.

Cooper, B.

Loch, J.

Cartwright, W. R.

Littleton, E. I.

Clerk, Sir G.

Labouchere, H.

Courtenay, rt. hon. F. P.

Langston, J. H.

Cockburn, Sir G.

Lushington, Col.

Calvert, J.

Martin, Sir B.

Calcraft, rt. hon. J.

Mountcharles, Lord

Craddock, Col.

Meynell, Captain

Callaghan, G.

Moore, G.

Capel, J.

Morgan, Sir C.

Corry, hon. H.

Marryat, J.

Corry, Lord

Manners, Lord C.

Colborne, R.

Morgan, Captain

Corbett, P.

Macleod, J. N.

Darlington, Lord

Murray, Sir G.

Downie, R.

Milbank, M.

Doherty, J.

Maitland, Hon. A.

Dottin, A. R.

Morland, Sir S. B. Bt.

Downes, Lord

Mildmay, P.

Daly, J.

Malcolm, N.

Denison, J. E.

Norton, G. C.

Dundas, R.

North, J. H.

East, Sir E. H. Bart.

Northcote, H. S.

Eliot, Lord

Owen, Sir J. Bart.

Estcourt, T.

Owen, H. O.

Estcourt, T. H.

O'Bryen, W.

Egerton, W.

Palmer, R.

Ewart, W.

Perceval, S.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Petit, L. H.

Foster, L.

Peel, rt. hon. R.

Fergusson, C.

Peel, W.

Gower, Lord F. L.

Peel, J.

Graham, Marquis

Peach, N. W.

Graham, Sir J.

Peachy, General

Grant, rt. hon. C.

Powlett, Lord W. J. F.

Grant, rt. hon. R.

Palk, Sir L. V., Bart.

The following is a Copy of the Bill as proposed by the noble Marquis:—
A BILL
To restore the Constitutional Influence of the Commons in the Parliament of England, and to secure for ever the Purity of Representation, and the Freedom of Election, of Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament.
WHEREAS it has been declared and admitted from time immemorial, as well as by ancient statutes, "that the Commons of

Palmerston, Lord

Trench, Colonel

Roberts, W. A.

Twiss, H.

Rose, Capt. G. P.

Townshend, hon. J.

Ross, C.

Thompson, L.

Rice, T.

Valletort, Lord

Strathaven, Lord

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Somerset, Lord R. E.

Van Homrigh, P.

Somerset, Lord G.

Vernon, G. G. V.

Scott, Sir W.

Villiers, T. H.

Smith, R. V.

Walrond, B.

Spence, G.

Wallace, T.

Spottiswoode, A.

Wood, Colonel

Scarlett, Sir J.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Scott, H. F.

Warrender, right hon. Sir G.

Sandon, Lord

Sidney, P. C.

Walpole, Colonel

Sanderson, R.

Ward, W.

Sefton, Lord

Wigram, W.

Surrey, Lord

Wall, B.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Whitmore, W. W.

Slaney, R. A.

TELLERS.

Stanley, Hon. E.

Dawson, G. R.

Thynne, Lord J.

Planta, J.

MINORITY.

Althorp, Lord

Nugent, Lord

Benett, J.

O'Connell, D.

Bernal, R.

Palmer, F.

Birch, J.

Pendarvis, E. W.

Blake, Sir F.

Poyntz, S.

Brougham, H.

Protheroe, E.

Butler, C.

Ramsbottom, J.

Burdett, Sir F.

Robarts, A. W.

Calvert, N.

Robinson, Sir G.

Cholmeley, M. J.

Russell, Lord J.

Clive, E. B.

Russell, J.

Denison, W. J.

Saville, L.

Davies, Colonel

Smith, W.

Davenport, E.

Sykes, D.

Dawson, A.

Taylor, M. A.

Ebrington, Lord

Thomson, P.

Easthope, J.

Warburton, H.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Webbe, Colonel

Fortescue, hon. G.

Wilson, Sir R.

Gordon, R.

Wells, J.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Whitbread, H.

Howick, Lord

Whitbread, S.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Western, C.

Jephson, C. O.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Lambert, J. S.

Wood, Ald.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wood, J.

Marshall, J.

Wyvill, M.

Marshall, W.

TELLERS.

Martin, J.

Blandford, Marquis of Joseph Hume

Monck, J. B.

England were ever a part of the Parliament:"
And whereas it is one of the most ancient and undoubted prerogatives of the Crown, with the advice of the Privy Council, to summons, by writ issued out of Chancery, Sheriffs of the different counties to return Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses to serve in Parliament for such counties, and the cities and boroughs within the same:
And whereas the purpose and object of conferring on the Crown this high and transcendant prerogative, was to insure, by the return of such

Preamble
Lord Torrington, in presenting a petition from four hundred and fifty owners and occupiers of land in the neighbourhood of Tunbridge, complaining of agricultural distress, and praying for a repeal of the duties on Malt and Beer, observed that he could assure their Lordships, that the distress in the neighbourhood of that district, which was emphatically called the Garden of Kent, was so great that nothing could exceed it. He himself resided in the parish of Mereworth, and he would, as a specimen of the distress which prevailed in that county, describe to them the condition of that parish. The number of acres it contained was two thousand two hundred, of which one thousand were very poor land. The rental of the parish was 1,668 l. The poor-rates, church-rates, and highway-rates, for the last year, were 1,251 l. The poor-rates on the tithes were 372 l., making a total charge

581
of 1,623 l.,—a sum very little inferior to the rental out of which it was to be paid. The population of the parish consisted of seven hundred and fifty-five persons. The number of paupers resident in the parish, who received relief, was three hundred and twenty-three; the number of paupers resident out of the parish, but having claims on it, was one hundred and thirty-three. The severe weather of the present winter had cast thirty additional families on the parish, thus making an addition of ninety persons to the list of paupers, none of whom had ever before applied for relief. The inhabitants were paying before 15 s. 6d. in the pound for poor-rates, and this addition would of course bring a heavier charge upon them.

CURRENCY.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, some nights ago a noble Lord opposite (Earl Stanhope) had asked him a question respecting the authority upon which he had made the statement which he had offered to their Lordships on the first night of the Session, as to the amount of the Currency. He had then told the noble Lord that he had made the statement from information which had been supplied to him, but that he could not at the moment say from what official documents it had been derived. He had since ascertained that point. If the noble Lord had no objection, he would now make a motion which would place the documents on which his calculation was founded, on the table of their Lordships. The noble Duke accordingly moved for various returns, elucidatory of his former statement.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that the information which the noble Duke was now granting was very desirable, and very fit to be laid before their Lordships. He was, however, still unable to make out how the noble Duke could derive from these returns the results which he had stated. He would, for his own part, confess that the manner in which the noble Duke had spoken on this question on the first night of the Session, had left an impression on his mind, and he believed on the minds of the rest of their Lordships, that those results were derived from calculations founded upon official papers. It turned out, however, from what the noble Duke said on a former night, that they were derived from nothing but a memorandum of the noble Duke's own. The returns for which the noble
582
Duke had moved, might show the quantity of paper issued by the Bank of England, and the quantity of gold and silver coined by the Mint; but they could not show the quantity of gold and silver now in circulation. A great quantity of the bullion which had been coined must have disappeared, for their Lordships had heard of one large capitalist, who, for some time, had gone on exporting to the amount of half a million of sovereigns in a week. But the statement of the noble Duke bore a fallacy upon the face of it; for if we had more gold in the country now than we had at a former period, how, he would ask, had that gold been purchased?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he had moved for the production of the documents from which he had obtained his information, in the hope that they would make the same impression on the minds of others as they had made upon his own. If he had drawn erroneous conclusions from those documents, the noble Lord would be able to detect them, and would have a right to find fault with them as fallacious and delusive. He thought, however, that the noble Lord would not be able to convict them of error. Indeed, he was sure that noble Lords, after inspecting those documents, would agree with him that, in the comparison which he had drawn—for it was nothing else but a comparison— between the amount of the Currency at the time when there was the greatest circulation of paper, and the amount of the Currency at the present time, he was right in saying that there was a larger quantity of coin now in circulation than there was formerly. He was sure that all their Lordships would allow that when the exchanges were in favour of this country gold would not go out of it. Gentlemen might carry it abroad with them to meet their individual expenses, but merchants would not send it abroad as an article of merchandise. He admitted that when the exchanges were against this country, the quantity of gold drawn from the Bank might indicate the quantity taken out of the country, and the result of those two principles of calculation was that which he had stated to their Lordships on the first night of the Session.
Viscount Goderichsaid, the documents for which the noble Duke had just moved, when added to those for which he had himself moved on a former evening, would put their Lordships in possession of all the

583
information which could be of any avail to them upon this subject. As to the amount of gold coin in circulation at any given time, there must always be some degree of doubt, for no accurate information could be obtained of the quantity of gold coin that was re-imported after it had been once exported. There could be no doubt that a great quantity of the gold which was exported was afterwards re-imported when an alteration of the exchanges ensued. He would state the grounds upon which he made that assertion. During the years 1824 and 182.3 the exchanges were unfavourable to England, and a considerable quantity of gold was drawn from the Bank for the express purpose of being exported to France. At the termination of the year 1825, the exchanges turned, and became favourable to this country; and then the very identical sovereigns which had been exported were re-imported in the same casks by the same persons who had exported them, to the amount of 1,500,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. Their Lordships must not therefore assume, that because gold was exported, none was re-imported. What he had just mentioned to their Lordships he knew of his own personal knowledge to be the fact.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that although the returns which had just been moved for might afford some approximation to the amount of our circulation, they would only afford an approximation, and ought not to be considered as accurate. He was, however anxious to slate to their Lordships why he should not attach much importance to these returns, even if they could be procured of perfect accuracy. He apprehended that Circulation was one thing, and Currency another, for the amount of Currency did not always agree with the amount of Circulation. He likewise apprehended that the amount of Currency was not. to be taken as a test of national prosperity. One of the most acute and enlightened Ministers, on points of finance at least, which France had over possessed, (M. Necker), had made a series of calculations at the time of the Revolution, from which it appeared that the amount of Currency in France was greater at that time than the amount of Currency now is in England; from which, if any body inferred that there was at that time greater prosperity in France than there was at present in England, he would
584
come to a conclusion quite irreconcileable with facts. For his own part, he believed that, if by some fatal calamity half the traders of England were to become bankrupts to-morrow, such an event would greatly increase the amount of the Currency; for it would destroy confidence and intercept credit; and to supply the credit thus suspended, it would be necessary to issue a greater amount of Currency. The wealth of the country would not be increased by such an occurrence; but undoubtedly there would be a great increase in the amount of the Currency. He thought it right to call the attention of their Lordships to the distinction which existed between Circulation and Currency, and to guard them against considering the amount of the Currency as a fair index of national prosperity.
Earl Stanhopestated, in explanation, that he never considered gold, once exported, as banished for ever from the country.
The returns were ordered.

CANDIA AND GREECE.
Lord Hollandsaid, before their Lordships entered upon the important debate which was fixed for that evening, he wished to put a question to his Majesty's Ministers upon a point, which prior to the independence of Greece being finally settled, ought to be clearly and explicitly understood, not only by the parties immediately concerned in it, but also by the Parliament of England, and by the public at large. He addressed the question which he was going to ask to the noble Lords opposite in the plural number; for he really did not know from which of the public offices the orders had been issued to which he referred, and which were now acted upon by the Commanders of his Majesty's squadrons in the Mediterranean. He was given to understand, that the admiral and captains of his Majesty's vessels on the Mediterranean station were authorized and directed to search all Turkish vessels with which they might fall in, and to intercept all such vessels as they might find having Greek men and women on board, destined to be carried as slaves into foreign countries. It had been stated to him, that such were the instructions issued to all our naval Commanders upon that station. He did not know the precise period at which these instructions were issued, but he believed that they were given to them by

585
implication so far back as the year 1826, which was previous to the signing of the Protocol. But it mattered not when these instructions were given,—it mattered not what disputes might have arisen in consequence of acting upon them; the fact, he believed, was admitted, that the Admiral had received such instructions, and was authorized to act as he had stated. Now, this being the state of circumstances, he wished to know whether these instructions were to apply to Turkish vessels proceeding from Candia, as they had applied to Turkish vessels proceeding from the Morea and from Negropont? He wished also to know what would be the effect of these orders, if the pacification of Greece should be accomplished, leaving Candia in the hands of the Turks? He also asked whether our Admirals would be authorized to intercept Turkish vessels proceeding from Candia with white slaves on board, or whether their instructions would be reversed by the mere circumstance of that pacification? That was the most material question of all, and he therefore wished to know the construction which his Majesty's Government put upon these instructions, as there could be no doubt about their existence.
Earl Bathurstcame forward to declare that he was the Minister from whose office the instructions to which the noble Baron alluded had emanated. At the same time he could not help expressing a wish that the noble Baron had given him previous notice of his intention to ask a question upon this subject; for, by looking at the official documents, he should have been able to give the noble Baron a more accurate answer than he could now promise to do from a mere recollection of them, so long after the time at which they had originally been drawn up. As well as he recollected—and he trusted that noble Lords would not charge him hereafter with intentional misrepresentation in case his recollection were wrong—as well as he recollected, the instructions given to our naval Commanders in the Mediterranean were given under an impression, which his Majesty's Government believed to be well founded, that Ibrahim Pacha had published a proclamation in Greece, announcing his intention of taking every Greek whom he could capture to Egypt as a slave, and of transporting a number of Asiatics into Greece, to replace the population so removed. In consequence
586
of the information, and in consequence of impression derived from it, instructions were sent to the Admiral in the Mediterranean to apply to Ibrahim Pacha, and to ask him, in the first place, whether he had issued such a proclamation; and then, if he acknowledged having issued it, to ask him, in the next place, whether he intended to carry it into execution; and finally, if his reply were still in the affirmative, to give him to understand that the British Government would not permit him to act according to the tenor of his proclamation, but would take measures to prevent its execution. Application was made in consequence by our Admiral to Ibrahim Pacha, and his answer was, that he would give no answer, for, whatever he did was done by order of the Sultan,—that the Sultan alone was responsible for it,— and that application ought not to be made to him, but to the Sultan. We found, in point of fact, that no such proclamation had been issued. Instructions were, however, conditionally given to our Commanders, that if such a principle should be acted upon by Ibrahim Pacha, or by any Turkish officer acting under him, every Turkish vessel should be searched in order to ascertain whether any Greek prisoners were on the point of being transported to Egypt as slaves, or whether any Egyptians were on the point of arriving in Greece for the purpose of settling there as colonists.
Viscount Goderichsaid, that his principal reason for rising was to inform their Lordships, that his recollection of the circumstances which gave rise to these instructions coincided in most respects with the account given by his noble friend, the President of the Council. It was undoubtedly true, that in consequence of information which reached this country that there was an intention on the part of Ibrahim Pacha to remove the Greek population from the Morea, and to substitute a Mahometan population in its stead, instructions were sent to our Admiral in the Mediterranean, directing him to obtain a categorical answer from Ibrahim Pacha on the one hand, and from the Sultan on the other, as to the reality of such an intention, in order to intimate to either of them, in case they avowed such an intention, that the British Government would not suffer a measure of that nature to be carried into effect. He did not think that the memory of his noble friend (Earl

587
Bathurst) was altogether correct when he stated that our Admiral received authority to take direct steps to prevent the execution of Ibrahim Pacha's designs, in case our information respecting them proved to be correct. All he had to do was to communicate the fact to the Government at home, in order that he might receive further instructions. In point of fact, Ibrahim Pacha disavowed the proclamation, though he wished to throw the responsibility of all he did upon the Porte. If he recollected rightly, the Porte had also disavowed the proclamation. If so, there could be no doubt that those orders having been founded on a conditional state of things, which in point of fact never existed, must be a dead letter; and, therefore, any authority which our Admirals might have to intercept Turkish vessels with Greek slaves on board, must be quite distinct from the orders which had been given to Sir Harry Neal.
Lord Hollandbegged leave to say a few words in explanation, for it appeared to him, from what had fallen from the two noble Lords who had just addressed their Lordships, that they did not understand the drift of his questions. First of all, let him be permitted to say to the noble President of the Council that it was no want of candour that had prevented him from furnishing the noble Earl with previous notice of his intention to put these questions. Neither had the noble President any reason to complain of the course which he had pursued, for his main question was merely prospective. His question was, not when these instructions were first issued, and what was their precise nature and extent; but taking it for granted that they were in force, did they apply to Candia as they formerly applied to the Morea and to Negropont? And would they apply to Candia, when the pacification of Greece was completed, supposing Candia to be still left in the hands of the Turks? As to the extent of the orders, though he knew that it had been the subject of dispute between the Government and the gallant Admiral who had gained for himself immortal glory at Navarino, that, he could assure their Lordships, was not the point at which he had been aiming. But as one of the reasons assigned for the recall of that gallant officer was, that he had not put his orders in force in the manner in which he ought, he (Lord Holland) had been of opinion either that
588
those orders were still in full force, or that new and less ambiguous orders had been issued in their stead. Without pretending to know any secrets of our own Government, he might be permitted to refer to the orders issued by the French Government to the French Admiral which were in his possession; and if the orders issued to the British Admiral were similar to those issued to the French Admiral, there could be no doubt that until the pacification of Greece was complete, he must intercept all Turkish vessels having Greeks on board to be carried into slavery. He had not put the questions which he had asked of his Majesty's Government with a view of censuring their orders; for he had no doubt that both the British and the French Admirals had been called on to interfere with such an unlawful traffic as a white slave trade in the Mediterranean. The orders which had been sent to the French Admiral were to this effect:—"You will lose no time in announcing to Ibrahim Pacha that you will not allow any such outrage upon the rights of humanity, but will prevent it to the utmost of your power: and if you find any such captives on board the vessels you may visit, you will forthwith set them at entire liberty." It was not merely the spirit of the orders of the French Government that induced him to believe we were not to suffer this slave trade, he was led to the belief also by the spirit of the answer made by a leading Member of the Government in the House of Commons when interrogated upon this point. When a question was put to him upon it, about a year or a year and a half ago, it was distinctly understood from his answer, that such orders were still in force. He asked whether, circumstanced as things now were, our Admirals had still the same instructions and the same right to stop Turkish vessels laden with Candiote slaves, and whether those instructions would continue in force after the pacification of Greece was finally concluded.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he could not pretend to recollect precisely the terms of an order issued four years ago; but he believed the fact to be as the noble Viscount (Goderich) had stated it —namely, that the order referred to applied solely to the Morea. He (the Duke of Wellington) believed that it was not applicable at that time to Candia, or indeed to any other part of Greece, save to the Morea. As the Morea had not been

589
liable to have its population exported in this manner, the order, though it still remained with the Admiral, was not likely to be executed, as the contingency for which it had been issued to provide had never existed.
Lord Hollandsaid, that there was one merit, at least, in the answer of the noble Duke—it was a distinct and explicit answer. He now understood that the instructions did not apply to Candia. He did not wish to argue the policy or impolicy of that arrangement at the moment, when their Lordships were about to have a great question submitted to their consideration; but he could not help requesting their Lordships to remark the situation in which this country and the British Admiral were placed by it. The original instructions were issued before the Protocol, and consequently before the signature of the Treaty of the 6th of July. On what principle were they issued? Were they not issued on the score of humanity? Were they not directly contrary —were they not in the very teeth of that austere and extreme neutrality which the noble Lords opposite so much affected? For, strictly speaking, we had no right, according to the ordinary law of nations, to interfere in any struggle which might be raging between the Turks and their subjects—the Greeks. He had no doubts that those instructions were issued because the honest, and manly, and humane nature of the late Lord Liverpool was shocked at the contemplation of a war conducted on such principles, and was revolted by the outrages which were committed during its continuance, upon human nature. Upon such grounds we had interfered to prevent such a traffic, and he wished to know whether any difference at all was made on that occasion between the inhabitants of Candia and those of the Morea? At all events, we sanctioned the principle of interference with such an odious traffic, and if it should hereafter be the policy of the Ottoman Porte to transport the Greek inhabitants of Candia as slaves to Egypt or elsewhere, having already sanctioned the principle of interfering, by preventing the transportation of Greek slaves from the Morea, we had set the example to the other Powers of Europe to interfere and interrupt such a trade, if trade it could be called, should it ever be carried on. If such a transportation of the inhabitants of Candia should be at-empted, it would be right and fair, under
590
such circumstances, for the Powers of Europe to interfere; and what then, became of the pacification of Greece? Would it not be more prudent, and certainly more effectual towards establishing the pacification of Greece, to have that point settled in the first instance, and not to leave the Powers of Europe, as they stood before the 6th of July, possessed of the right of interfering and engaging in warfare with the Turks without the restrictions and fetters imposed upon them by that Treaty? It was to avoid such a state of things that he (Lord Holland) was anxious that some arrangement should be made with regard to Candia. It was for that purpose he had asked this question before the final settlement of Greece had been arranged; and if the views which he had stated to their Lordships on the subject should appear just and correct to his Majesty's Ministers, it might be yet time enough to adopt them and carry them into effect in the intended settlement of Greece.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the line pursued by the noble Lord on this occasion had been most informal. The noble Lord came down to the House, and without any notice whatever, put a question respecting transactions that had taken place three years ago; he made three speeches, containing long reasonings in each of them upon the subject, and then called upon his Majesty's Government to answer at once his hypothetical question. As to what might be the conduct of the Powers of Europe if certain occurrences foretold by the noble Lord should take place, it was not for him to say; but this he would say, that he was ready, whenever the noble Lord should think proper to bring forward any specific Motion upon the subject, to answer any questions he should have to propose. But for the present he would beg the noble Lord to bear in mind that the measures which had been taken to prevent the transportation of slaves from the Morea, were not applicable to Candia, because the circumstances respecting the transactions in the Morea did not apply to Candia; and before the noble Lord assumed that the same principle which had been formerly acted upon with regard to the Morea would be applied to what might occur in Candia, it was necessary for the noble Lord to show that the state of things in the Morea was similar to the state of things in Candia.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it should be recollected that the statement as to the transportation of Greek slaves from the Morea to Egypt was almost in every respect an exaggerated, false, and unfounded story.
Lord Hollandwould merely ask, in reply to what had fallen from the noble Lord, whether a great many slaves who were about being transported by Ibrahim Pacha from the Morea had not been seized and released by Sir E. Codrington, and whether there were not many Candiotes amongst those who were thus released?
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, it was impossible for him to say whether there were or were not Candiotes amongst the slaves transported to Alexandria, but to show that there had been much exaggeration and misrepresentation abroad upon the subject, he would state a simple fact. It was well known that there were many Greek slaves serving in the Turkish army in the Morea, and when that army was about to evacuate the Morea, and they were left to their choice, either to go with their masters or to remain with their relations, they preferred going to Egypt to remaining in Greece.—The subject was here dropped.

POUTUGAL.
Viscount Melbournemoved, that that portion of the King's Speech delivered at the opening of Parliament which related to Portugal should be read; which having been done, the noble Lord rose to introduce the Motion of which he had given notice upon the subject. We regret to say, however, that the noble Lord throughout the whole of his address to the House, spoke in so low a tone, and so frequently dropped his voice, that it was exceedingly difficult to catch what fell from him. He commenced by observing that their Lordships were aware, from that portion of his Majesty's Speech which had been just read, that his Majesty saw very little prospect of the negotiations which were announced at the commencement of the Session in 1825, and were again mentioned in less sanguine terms in his Majesty's Speech at the close of the Session, being brought to any satisfactory conclusion,—that he saw very little prospect of a reconciliation between the Princes of the House of Braganza, and that so much inconvenience had resulted from the present state of affairs—the continued interruptions of the relations between this country and Portugal had been
592
productive of so many inconveniences and embarrassments,—that it was the desire of his Majesty "to effect the termination of so serious an evil." From this latter portion of the Speech it might be pretty clearly and distinctly seen, that the termination which his Majesty had in view was the recognition of the present Government of Portugal; and his (Lord Melbourne's) noble friend, the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had, he believed, already stated on the first night of the Session that the only consideration as to the recognition of that Government was a question of time, and that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to give any further information to the House before that recognition should take place. Under such circumstances, he conceived it to be his duty, seeing that this was a question affecting the best interests, and replete with the most serious consequences to the good faith and honour of this country, to bring it under the consideration of their Lordships. In doing so it would be necessary for him in the first place to lay before their Lordships a clear and detailed statement of the whole course that had been pursued in regard to Portugal, in order to enable them to judge whether the interests of this country had been properly consulted, and whether proper measures had been taken to maintain our honour, and to preserve our fidelity to the engagements into which we had entered. He should commence his statement with the period when the Emperor of Brazil thought fit to adopt measures for the separation of the Crowns of Portugal and Brazil. Having come to that determination, his Brazilian Majesty chose to accompany the separation of the two Crowns with the establishment of a Constitution in Portugal, and he consulted Sir C. Stuart, our Ambassador then at Brazil, respecting the formation of that Constitution. Of that Constitution also Sir C. Stuart was the bearer to Portugal, and the adoption of it in that country was cautiously and temperately recommended in certain despatches from Mr. Canning, who then filled the office now filled by the noble Lord opposite, and who acted as the Minister of the Government of this country for Foreign Affairs. There was, besides, the direct and active interference of our Ambassador (Sir C. Stuart) to induce the people of Portugal, to accept that Constitution, which was accordingly accepted, which became the Constitution

593
of Portugal, and which Don Miguel, at Vienna, pledged himself to support in the presence of our Ambassador. The result, however, was, that that Constitution was entirely overturned; that in the overturning of it, and in the usurpation of Sovereign authority by Don Miguel, there were manifested on his part a contempt of all promises, a violation of all engagements, and that such of the inhabitants of Portugal as had supported the Constitution were driven from their homes, dispossessed of their properties, and either transported to pestilential climates, or condemned to an ignominious death upon the scaffold. Such was the fate of all those who adhered to the Constitution established by British influence in Portugal, or who were charged with adhering to it. That short and simple statement of the case he was confident would make their Lordships feel that it was their duty to enter upon a full inquiry into this subject. The end and termination of all those proceedings in Portugal their Lordships would see was, that all those suffered in the way he had described who had adhered to the Constitution brought to Portugal from Brazil—a Constitution which had been so recommended by our Government to them, and which had been adopted by them principally through the direct and active interference of his Majesty's representative at Lisbon—a Constitution supported by a British army, and upheld by the continuance of that British army in Portugal long after the occasion for which it had been first sent to that country had ceased to require its presence there. And now, after all such changes and alterations had taken place, and after the destruction of that Constitution in the establishment of which we had been leading and principal agents, his Majesty's Speech deplored the evils arising from the interruption of our relations with Portugal, and expressed a wish for their renewal. But he would ask whether we could by any such renewal ever stand again in the same relations towards Portugal as formerly—whether it were possible we ever could renew the same relations of confidence and friendly feeling that formerly existed between us, and whether there was any party in that country that would not regard us with feelings of distrust and hostility? Could we reckon upon the friendship of the partisans of Don Miguel, whom we had offended by our interference
594
for the establishment of a liberal constitution in Portugal, or could we seek for the friendship and support of that party who had listened to our advice, and had been ruined by its adoption? The fact was, that our conduct towards that party had thrown them into the hands of foreign Powers. It had been stated, either by the noble Duke, or by the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, upon a former night, that in consequence of what had taken place in Portugal, there was a risk, if our relations continued much longer interrupted, of our throwing the parties into which Portugal was divided into the hands of foreign Powers, and of dissolving that friendly connexion which had so long existed between this country and Portugal. But it was extremely improbable, that by the mere renewal of our commercial relations with Portugal we should renew our ancient amity and mutual feeling of good will; and in regarding this question, he, for his part, did not merely look upon it as one connected solely with our commercial relations, but one which gravely affected the public interests and honour of this country. Our conduct in this instance was of a piece with acts of ours recorded in history, and to which we could not look back with any degree of pride or satisfaction. Our character did not stand high upon the continent, for what had we done there? If we referred to history, we should find that it was filled with the records of a series of abandonments, — the abandonment of the Elector Palatine,— the abandonment of the French Protestants by Charles 1st,—the abandonment of Holland, and the whole Protestant interest of the continent, by Charles 2nd,—the entire abandonment of our continental Allies, by the treaty of Utrecht, which gave rise to the resolution that the noble Duke opposite had termed ridiculous, but which was then rendered necessary by the pusillanimity of the Minister of the day—the abandonment of the Emperor in 1735, in consequence of which Alsace and Lorraine were wrested from him; and, finally, the abandonment of Prussia by the peace of 1763. Such was our history, and it shewed that our conduct upon the continent had been characterized by a series of abandonments and by the violation of good faith and plighted engagements towards our Allies. But it might be said, and it had been said, that it was not the policy of this country to interfere in the

595
affairs of other nations. He (Lord Melbourne) would be the last man in that House to recommend the adoption on our part of a meddling and interfering system, such as that which the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had upon a former occasion so strongly condemned; but he could not avoid remarking that at the same time that the noble Secretary expressed his disapproval of such a system, he was meddling and negociating with every court in the world; and in truth it was necessary, circumstanced as this country was, to carry on such negotiations. While the noble Secretary expressed so decided a condemnation of the principle of interference, he must be too well acquainted with practical affairs not to know, that with dominions such as we possessed, and with the various relations which appertained to us, as the first commercial and manufacturing country in the world, and which bring us into connexion with every nation in the globe, the strict principle of non-interference was a policy entirely impossible for adoption on the part of this country. It was well known that since the conclusion of the great war with France efforts had been made in almost every part of Europe by the people generally desirous to obtain better institutions, to get rid of their old forms of Government, and procure for themselves some share in the administration of their own affairs. Revolutions for such objects had occurred in Spain, in Naples, in Piedmont, and in Portugal. These struggles had been encouraged by speeches and by public meetings in this country, and hopes had been held out to those engaged in them by the levying of men in this country for their assistance. He had always disapproved of the adoption of such measures on the part of individuals in this country, but whose honourable motives he respected, and whose patriotic principles he admired; and he disapproved of such measures, because that which was only the act of an individual would on the continent be applied to England generally, and persons abroad would be deluded into the notion that they might count on the support of this country in their efforts to obtain independence and good government. The impression had in consequence gone abroad, that the Government of this country was inclined to support those who were not afraid to encounter the evils of civil war, and it was for that reason
596
he (Lord Melbourne) had always disapproved of the species of interference which had been manifested by the people of this country in behalf of the revolutions on the continent. He was of opinion that the honour and interests of this country were so deeply compromised by the measures which had been adopted with respect to Portugal, that it was due to their Lordships to demand from his Majesty's Ministers a full and complete statement of the whole facts of the case, of the course which they had pursued, of the guidance which they had followed, and of the measures which it was intended to adopt in order to bring the negotiations on the subject at length to a termination. A number of papers had been laid upon their Lordships table last Session, which he now held in his hand. They had been laid before them in consequence of a motion made in the other House by an hon. and learned friend of his, and which specifically called for all papers relating to the negotiations carried on between the Crown of Great Britain and his Brazilian Majesty. That motion was shaped in the form in which it had been carried upon a direct understanding with the Minister of the Crown, that all information should be communicated, which did not contain such premature disclosure of negotiations, or matters then pending, as might be injurious to the public interests. In looking over these papers, however, he did not think there had ever been a more meagre unsatisfactory series of documents concerning a series of events presented to Parliament. These papers were divisible into four or five portions. The first related to the embassy of Sir C. Stuart; the second related to the Protocol of Vienna; the third consisted of despatches to and from our Ambassador at Lisbon, after the return of Don Miguel. There were two letters also which passed between the Marquis Barbacena and the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), respecting a demand made by the Marquis for assistance from our Government for the Queen Donna Maria; and the remainder consisted of a correspondence between the noble Duke (Wellington) and the Marquisses of Barbacena and Palmella, respecting certain Portuguese troops landed in this country. Nothing could be more meagre and unsatisfactory than the first portion of these papers. They were, in many instances, contradic-

597
tory of each other. The second letter of Mr. Canning alluded more to the necessity of interference than the first; and the second letter of Sir William A'Court differred from his first letter, for in the second he expressed himself satisfied that the Constitution would be adopted and sworn to in Portugal. And here the noble Lord said he could not avoid making an observation which had often occurred before to him,—he alluded to the impropriety of individuals employed in his Majesty's service accepting, when in the discharge of such duties, titles and honours from foreign Governments. Let those who did not serve the State in a civil or military capacity, if they pleased, receive such honours, to whatever extent they might be proffered; but let those who were employed in the special service of the King of Great Britain be contented with the honours conferred upon them by their own Sovereign, which were always liberally, and sometimes even prodigally, bestowed upon those who served him faithfully. Above all let not individuals decorated with foreign titles, and upon whom properties had been bestowed by foreign Powers, be accredited to foreign courts as the representatives of the King of Great Britain. The evils which had occurred from employing such individuals in stations of such delicacy and importance, were too obvious and too well known to render it necessary for him more particularly to allude to them. The noble Lord proceeded to complain that there was a gap in the correspondence laid before Parliament, extending from the 4th of August, 1826, to the 5th of November, 1827, and it was principally to fill up that important gap that he had called their Lordships' attention to the subject, and should ask them to concur with him in the Motion with which he meant to conclude. He next came to the Protocol of Vienna, which had been signed by Don Miguel in the presence of our Ambassador. He did not wish to use any strong or violent expressions regarding the public capacity of that individual; enough had appeared of his private character, and upon the face of the papers which had been laid before the House; and enough was known of his conduct in 1824, when he rebelled against his father for the purpose of usurping his authority, to render it needless to say much regarding his conduct in a public point of view. But he
598
conceived that in a great and moral country like this, they should affix the stamp of their reprobation upon the conduct of a man who had violated all his engagements, and proved himself alike indifferent to honour and to faith, to the most sacred promises, and the most solemn contracts. Their Lordships were aware of the engagement to which Don Miguel pledged himself at Vienna in the presence of the British Ambassador. It had been said that the British Ambassador was no party to that, that he was merely a witness on the occasion,—rather an odd situation for a British Ambassador to fill,—but the presence of our Ambassador on that occasion, it could not be disputed, was a sanction on our part to the proceeding that took place, and to the engagement which was then entered into. The fact itself was sufficient to show their Lordships the necessity of having further information laid before them on the subject. But it would appear distinctly from a letter written by the Emperor of Brazil, that Great Britain not. only directly assisted him in procuring the adoption of the new Constitution in Portugal, but also impliedly engaged to maintain it; for his Majesty expressed his thanks in the letter in question for the assistance thus afforded to him, and his hope that since the Constitution had been framed we should enable him to ensure the maintenance of it for the future. Now, if that letter received no answer disavowing any such intention on the part of Great Britain, and if it were, on the contrary, sanctioned by the conduct of the British Government acting and taking the part which it did, he could not see how this country could consistently have departed from the line of policy to which it thus stood pledged. Don Miguel having made every promise required in the presence of the Emperor of Austria and of the Ambassador of Great Britain,—having promised to adhere to the Protocol, to maintain the Constitution, and to put an end to all former differences, by granting a general amnesty on his arrival in Portugal, proceeded to Lisbon; and what were his first steps on arriving there? The moment he arrived, instead of granting an amnesty, he commenced a general persecution. Was it not plain, then, at once that he did not mean to keep one of his promises, and that as he had broken his promise as to the granting of an amnesty, he was also determined to break his pro-

599
mise as to the maintenance of the Constitution which he had pledged himself to uphold, but which, from the outset, it was obvious he intended to overthrow? Either he would keep all his promises or he would not; and as he commenced, on his very landing, by breaking one of them, it was quite obvious that he was determined to break them all. Such being the case, he (Lord Melbourne) would ask, why was our Ambassador allowed to remain so long at Lisbon? Why was not he immediately withdrawn, when Don Miguel commenced by breaking one of the engagements of that Protocol, the making of which our Ambassador at Vienna had witnessed, and the violation of which was witnessed by our Ambassador at Lisbon? But it might be said that the taking of such decided steps might lead to war, which ought to be avoided in the present state of the country. He (Lord Melbourne) could not entertain any apprehensions that such would have been the result of a bold and manly policy; on the contrary, he conceived that a much greater risk of war was incurred by the manifestation of weakness and fear, than by the assumption of a hostile attitude when we were called upon to assume it; and he very much dreaded that the timid policy which we had latterly pursued might eventually, and that at no very distant period, lead to war. What had happened in this case? We allowed Don Miguel to proceed step by step, breaking every promise, and violating every engagement which he had made, until his open usurpation of the Crown left us no decent alternative but to withdraw our Ambassador. Either we should not have interfered at all in the matter from the commencement, or we should have stopped him at first in his proceedings for the destruction of the Constitution. With regard to the Protocol of Vienna, the explanation afforded upon that subject in the papers laid before Parliament appeared to him extremely lame and unsatisfactory. He should like to know what actually took place on the occasion of the signing of the Protocol; he should like to see a copy of the reply to the despatch of our Ambassador at Vienna respecting it, and he should also like to see copies of the despatches of our Ambassador at Lisbon, respecting the conduct of Don Miguel after his arrival there. It was stated in his Majesty's Speech at the, close of the Session of 1828, in reference
600
to the state of Portugal, that "the just expectations of His Majesty have been disappointed; and measures have been adopted in Portugal, in disregard of the earnest advice and repeated remonstrances of his Majesty, which have compelled his Majesty, and the other Powers of; Europe acting in concert with his Majesty, to withdraw their representatives from Lisbon." If such advice and remonstrances had been repeatedly tendered, and if the despatches and documents in proof of that fact were in existence, it was fit they should be laid before the House, for not a word to such an effect appeared on the face of the papers that had been presented to Parliament. It would seem, indeed, that Parliament and the public had been much misled throughout the whole of the transactions connected with Portugal, and it was the duty of their Lordships to call for full and ample information on the subject.
There was one portion of the papers presented to Parliament to which he could not allude without pain and regret—he meant the correspondence between the noble Premier and the Marquisses Barbacena and Palmella, respecting the Portuguese troops that had been landed in this country. It was, in his opinion, one of the greatest blessings of our Constitution, that under it the very highest offices in the State were open to every individual in the country. He could not avoid observing, however, that the present noble Premier should endeavour to give to his administration as much of a civil character as possible, in order not to afford his enemies an opportunity of saying that that act (he meant the conduct adopted towards the unfortunate Portuguese troops) could only have been conceived in the mind of a mere soldier, and that it would not have been tolerated for a moment in the mind of any other individual in such an exalted station. That act he (Lord Melbourne) would say was contrary to the law of nations. We admitted them to land in this country when we might have prevented them: it might be perfectly fair on our part not to allow them to convert our ports into arsenals; but what right had we to follow them upon the high seas, and to stop them within the waters of a friendly Power? Such a proceeding was obviously contrary to the laws of nations. Why not stop them in port, and before they had proceeded on their voyage?

601
But it was replied that they had sailed with false clearances. The fact was, that previous to their sailing the Marquis Palmella had apprized the noble Duke opposite that their destination was Terceira; and the noble Duke could not, therefore, have been misled by any false clearances as to their real destination. This was a subject regarding which he was sure their Lordships would see at least the necessity of having further information laid before them. Altogether he trusted he had made out a case, demonstrating to their Lordships the necessity of having fuller and more complete information laid before them upon all the subjects he had mentioned. He should say no more, further than to add, that the line of conduct pursued by the Government of this country all through these transactions had been characterized by a disingenuousness and a harshness unmitigated by the expressions of any one honourable sentiment or generous feeling. The whole of our policy with respect to Portugal had been disgraceful, and to persist in it would be still more so. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would cause to be laid before their Lordships:—1st. Copies of any despatches to and from Sir Henry Wellesley, respecting the conferences held at Vienna in the month of October, 1827.— 2nd. A copy of instructions given to Sir Wm. Clinton, Commander of the British forces sent to Lisbon in the month of December, 1826; and Copies of any subsequent despatches to the same officer, as far as such despatches relate to the object and extent of the employment of the British force in Portugal.— 3rd. Copies of any instructions given, or communications made, to Sir William A'Court upon the same occasion.—4th. Copies of any despatches received from Sir William A'Court between the 4th of August, 1826, and the time of his departure from Lisbon; and also of any despatches addressed to Sir William A'Court by his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during the same period, as far as such despatches relate to the internal political affairs of Portugal.— 5th. A Copy of the Protocol of the conference held at London on the 12th of January, 1828, between the Ministers of England, Austria, and Portugal.— 6th. A Copy of the instructions given to Sir Frederick Lamb his Majesty's Ambassador to the Regent of Portugal.
602
—7th. Copies of such further despatches, or such further extracts from the despatches, from Sir Frederick Lamb, as relate to the proceedings in violation of the engagements entered into by Don Miguel, and to the steps directed by the British Government to be taken in consequence thereof.—8th. Copies of all despatches addressed to Sir Frederick Lamb by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs subsequent to the 1st of March, 1828.—9th. Copies of all communications between his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Portuguese Ambassador, the Marquis Palmella, subsequent to December, 1826.— 10th. A copy of the instructions given in 1828 to Lord Strangford, his Majesty's Ambassador to the Court of Rio Janeiro, and Copies of all correspondence upon the objects of his mission.—11th. Copies of any communications made to or received from the Courts of France, Spain, Austria, and Brazil, relating to the settlement of the affairs of Portugal, and to the recognition of Don Miguel as king of that country.— 12th. Copies of the whole correspondence respecting the arrival, residence, and departure of the Queen Maria da Gloria.— 13th. Copies of the correspondence which took place before the arrival of the Portuguese refugees, relating to their reception in this kingdom.—14th. The correspondence between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Marquis Barbacena on the subject of the Portuguese refugees leaving Plymouth, and the subsequent interruption of their landing in Terceira.—15th. The Protest of Count Saldanha, transmitted to Captain Walpole, and referred to in the enclosures D, G, and K, in No. 39 of the papers presented to this House.— 16th Copies of the negotiations and settlement which took place in London with Don Miguel, referred to in the despatch from Sir Frederick Lamb to the Earl of Dudley, of the 1st of March, 1828."
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that if the Motion of his noble friend had been more in accordance with Parliamentary usage and form, and if he had merely called for additional papers to explain the course which his Majesty's Ministers had deemed it right to pursue with regard to Portugal, he should have felt it his duty under such circumstances to oppose it, on the ground that such information was at present unnecessary. He was much more inclined

603
therefore to oppose the Motion, which was clearly made with very different views and for a very different purpose. Indeed, if the noble Viscount had intended to follow up such a Motion by an impeachment of his Majesty's Ministers, the papers which he had just moved for might certainly be necessary, in order to afford him grounds, if possible, of sustaining such a charge; but if it were merely information he desired, the noble Viscount, he must say, had, indeed, the most insatiable appetite he ever knew. The truth was, that if all the papers which he asked for were produced, they would amount to many volumes, and a great portion of them would be found to have no practical relation to the question upon which the noble Lord had addressed the House. Amongst other papers, the noble Lord had moved for copies of all the despatches addressed to Sir F. Lamb from the 2nd of March, 1828 —that was, during all the time of his mission to Lisbon, for he only arrived there at the latter end of February; and the noble Lord had also moved for copies of any despatches from Sir Wm. A'Court between the 4th of August, 1826, and the time of his departure from Lisbon; and also of any despatches addressed to Sir William A'Court by his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs during the same period, as far as such despatches relate to the internal political affairs of Europe. Why, these papers would comprehend a detail of all the transactions that had occurred there during the whole of that period; and did their Lordships conceive it necessary to have such information laid before them? He considered it to be his duty, in the present situation of this country with respect to the kingdom of Portugal, to state that he had not altered the opinion which he expressed when the papers respecting Portugal had been laid upon their Lordships table last Session. That opinion was, that they contained sufficient information on the subject, and he had now only to add, that until the measures which his Majesty's Ministers had advised his Majesty to adopt should be carried into effect, it was not their intention to lay any further information before their Lordships. When the change which was in contemplation should be completed, then further information would be readily laid before their Lordships. If the noble Viscount had read more attentively than he appeared to have done papers already before the
604
House, it was probable he would not have made this motion. Before he adverted to the various topics of the noble Mover's speech, he felt bound to say a few words upon a subject which, though the noble Lord had not himself dwelt much upon it, their Lordships would no doubt hear a good deal about in the course of the evening,—he meant the character of Don Miguel. He was anxious that he should not be misrepresented, as he had been upon a former occasion, in reference to what he thought on that subject, and as he meant to state his opinions regarding it plainly and clearly, any further misrepresentation of them could be only wilful. That Don Miguel was a most heartless and incorrigible person it was not possible to deny; that Don Miguel might be cruel also, he was ready to believe and to admit, as he knew very well that cruelty was too often the offspring of cowardice; but this he would say, that when he saw the absurd exaggerations which were put forth respecting that Prince, he could not avoid confessing, that to him such statements appeared calculated to have, upon fair minds who clearly perceived how gross were the exaggerations, an opposite effect from that which they were intended to produce. Such exaggerated statements were calculated to create a doubt of what was before believed to be true. It was his opinion that it was an unwise course to dwell too much on the personal character of princes, and still more to make their personal character a motive to influence the political conduct of other nations. He thought it was a question of minor importance, whether Don Miguel were a Nero or a Titus. That was a matter of comparatively small importance, considered with respect to the interests of the two countries, England and Portugal, conjointly; or separately, with respect to that course which it was essential for us to pursue, in order to maintain the honour, consistency, and well-understood interests of this country. Don Miguel had been accused by the noble Lord of having usurped the throne of Portugal. Now he did not mean to enter into all the mysteries of the law of jurisprudence in Portugal, but he must say, that whether Don Miguel were a usurper or not, their Lordships must allow the Portuguese nation, after all, to be not only the proper, but also the most competent judge to decide on that matter. There was no denying that by a vast ma-

605
jority of the Portuguese people, Don Miguel had been declared to be no usurper, but possessed of a legitimate right to the throne; and he apprehended, that from that decision there was no valid appeal. When he said that an immense majority of the Portuguese were of that opinion, he could not more satisfactorily support his assertion than by directing their Lordships' attention to the different manner in which the two brothers had presented themselves to the Portuguese nation. When Don Pedro sent that Constitution to Portugal—an ill fated present he feared it was —in its preamble he ordered it to be sworn to by the three estates of the kingdom, and afterwards promulgated. How was that direction complied with? Why, the party in power were afraid to comply with Don Pedro's order, and submit the act of Constitution to the three estates, because they well knew, that if the three estates were assembled, the right of Don Pedro to grant that Constitution would be questioned. Don Miguel, however, acted very differently when he went to Portugal,— whether the Cortes were assembled legally or not was another question,—yet he did in fact assemble them, according to all the ancient, lawful forms prescribed for such assembling, and submitted his claim to their deliberation. A more numerous or respectable assemblage than the one in question, in point of rank, wealth, and character, never met in Portugal. That assemblage affirmed his right to the Crown; and the persons who composed it were, after all, the most competent judges of the question. Then came the question as to the conduct of Don Miguel in respect to the violation of all those pledges which he had entered into at first in Vienna, and afterwards in England, and on this point, indeed, his conduct was utterly indefensible. This was "the head and front of his offending." All the engagements which he had entered into with his brother, with the Emperor of Austria, and with the King of England, he had shamefully violated; and this conduct had led to the present situation of affairs existing between England and Portugal. The noble Viscount had asked, when Don Miguel began to show an inclination to violate his promises, why did not the English Government immediately recall its Ambassador? Did the noble Viscount really think that that would have been the most prudent course to adopt. The Government
606
had in his opinion followed a much more advisable course. On the intimation given by Don Miguel of his intention to violate the promises he had made, the English Ambassador repeatedly remonstrated with him in the strongest manner. The next step he took was to suspend all intercourse with the Portuguese Government, and retire from the court. His last step, when nothing else was left for him to do, was to leave the country. What more could be done short of taking measures to declare war? Every thing in the way of remonstrance or threat that could be used, short of actual hostility, was employed. But if the arguments of the noble Viscount meant any thing,—if there were any consistency, honesty, or common sense in them, they must mean that the English Government ought to have adopted measures of force to compel Don Miguel to fulfil his promises; but their Lordships would hardly be prepared to approve of such a course. Every thing, indeed, short of actual warfare had been tried, and that, he was persuaded, was a result to which their Lordships unquestionably would not come. With respect to one part of the noble Lord's motion, which called for a copy of the negotiations which Lord Strangford carried on at Rio, he might say, that the result of those negotiations were already before their Lordships, in that portion of the papers laid on the Table which related to the transactions between the Marquis Barbacena and the English Government. In fact, Lord Strangford, on arriving at Rio, could hardly be said to have negociated at all; for he was told that a Brazilian Ambassador, with Plenipotentiary powers, was in Europe who was fully empowered to enter into and conclude all negotiations with respect to Portugal. The papers then on the Table, he might say, contained the result of Lord Strangford's mission, which was undertaken in the most amicable manner, and entirely in a spirit of reconciliation and friendship. But the Marquis Barbacena asked the English Government for succours, to assist in making a conquest of Portugal, and founded his claim on ancient treaties which were said to be still in existence. The noble Viscount would of course perceive what answer it was his duty as a Minister of the Crown of Great Britain to give to such an application; especially, when it did not appear that the English Government was bound

607
by any treaty of the kind supposed. The Marquis Barbacena repeated his application to our Government, and said, "If the existing Treaties do not authorize you to lend us assistance, let us make fresh ones." The Government thought that war could not, under any circumstances, be entered upon for such a purpose; and he must say, that it was most fortunate that the English Government did come to such a decision; for if we had entered into a war, the burthen of that war and its expenses would, under any circumstances, principally have fallen on this country. But it so happened that not only the principal burthen would have fallen on this country, but we should have had to wage it singly with a Power which had violated no positive engagements with us, for this country had received no guarantee from Don Miguel, but had only been the depository of pledges to his faith. If, indeed, he had guaranteed the fulfilment of his promises to this country, then he admitted that the country would have been bound in honour to see those promises executed. But nothing approaching to any guaranteed engagement had been entered into, and therefore we were not bound in support of the honour of the country to adopt hostile measures. If we had entered into war on the Marquis Barbacena's representations, he repeated, that this country would actually have had singly to undertake the conquest of Portugal. The Marquis Barbacena addressed his note to the Government, requesting its assistance, in November, 1828. But what said the Brazilian Minister in April, 1829? He derived his information indeed from newspapers, to which the noble Viscount professed to have recourse; but he had every reason to rely on the accuracy of the statement he was about to read to their Lordships. It appeared from the Brazilian newspapers, that one of the Deputies of the Brazilian Chamber reproached the Government for interfering with the affairs of Portugal, because the Brazilian Government was on terms of peace with Portugal, and carrying on all the relations with Portugal as this country did at present. How did the Brazilian Minister reply to that charge? [The Earl of Aberdeen here read a paragraph from a Brazilian newspaper, which stated that the Minister of the Interior of Brazil expressed his surprise at so serious a charge being brought against the Govern-
608
ment, which he declared was far from wishing to interfere with the affairs of Portugal,—reprobated in the most unqualified manner every act performed in Europe by the Brazilian diplomatist, who, he said, had no authority to act; and required that the Brazilian Government might not be considered responsible for what had been done in Europe by unqualified individuals, who had received no instructions to act as they had done. He asked, was the Government to blame because the distance of Brazil from Europe prevented their disapprobation of such conduct speedily reaching that part of the globe? Already, he reminded the Chamber, one Brazilian diplomatist had been dismissed, for conduct similar to what had excited the worthy Member's censure. How then could the Brazilian Government be charged with interfering in the affairs of Portugal?] This party, therefore, (continued the Earl of Aberdeen,) for whose benefit we were asked to assist to conquer Portugal, refused to sanction any such proceeding on the part of its agents, and, consequently, we should have been left to carry on the war alone. The English Government, in declining the proposal made to them, had acted not only justifiably, according to their conception of the interpretation of the treaties and engagements which existed with respect to Portugal, it had also acted most fortunately, inasmuch as the result would have been what he had stated to their Lordships. The principal ground on which the noble Viscount rested his reason for interfering with the present Government of Portugal, was the abandonment, as he conceived, of the Constitution, of which a present had lately been made to that country. What sort of interference the noble Viscount meant, unless by war, he could not understand. By what other method could the English Government force that Constitution on the Portuguese nation? The noble Viscount undertook to give a plain, simple, unvarnished statement of what he called the facts respecting the origin of the Constitution; but a statement more opposed to the facts he had never heard in the whole course of his life. If any one thing were more certain than another, it was the extraordinary anxiety which Mr. Canning showed to disconnect himself and this country from every thing belonging to that Constitution. The noble Viscount had said that Sir Charles Stuart assisted

609
in the formation of that Constitution. Now there was not the least shadow of foundation for any such statement. Sir Charles Stuart was merely the bearer of the Constitution to Europe, and that was all the concern he had in it. The instant it arrived in Europe, Mr. Canning was so much alarmed at the idea that this country might be thought to have had something to do with it, that he immediately wrote despatches to every Court in Europe, staling that the English Government had no concern in the formation of it, and that Sir Charles Stuart, in bringing it to Europe, had acted on his own responsibility, without receiving any instructions from his Majesty's Government. Thus, then, the noble Viscount's plain, simple, unadorned statement was entirely erroneous. No less wrong was he when he said that the general impression in Portugal was, that England would support the Constitution, and that those who had acted on that persuasion had become victims in support of what he at last called a British Constitution. The noble Viscount even went so far as to say that the Constitution was supported by the British army. That the presence of the British army might have operated in securing the existence of the Constitution, he would not deny; but when the army was sent to Portugal, great care was taken to declare that the sole purpose for which it was sent was to resist what was conceived to be a threat of foreign aggression. Six months afterwards, when a vote of credit passed the Parliament before the close of the Session, the same declaration was repeated in both Houses—namely, that the army remained in Portugal exclusively for the purposes for which it was originally sent. He could refer their Lordships to declarations, made in the strongest manner possible, disclaiming any other object in continuing the army in Portugal but to resist foreign aggression. That was acting strictly according to Treaties, but it formed no part of our obligation, implied or expressed, towards Portugal, to enforce any species of Constitution on the people of that country. Therefore, when the noble Viscount said that the Constitution was maintained by the British army, he completely misrepresented the state of the case. Though he should be very unwilling to call that Constitution a British Constitution, inasmuch as it had been concocted in Don Pedro's brain in less than a week's time, and therefore, however well intended,
610
must be imperfect in its parts and in its operation, yet he admitted that those Portuguese who supported it might, have been led to do so from the partiality which they might suppose this country would naturally entertain for it, and from an opinion that they were acting in conformity with the wish, at least, of the British Government. Inasmuch as they had been affected by those considerations, and suffered in consequence, although he felt most unwilling to interfere in the internal affairs of Portugal, or of any other nation, yet, in his opinion, it ought to be with the utmost possible reluctance that any person should think of renewing our relations with Portugal, unless those unhappy persons were placed on a footing of perfect security. The noble Viscount had asserted that he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had stated that England had allowed other Powers in Europe to occupy her place with respect to Portugal. That was not, however, the fact, He had stated, that if England maintained indefinitely her present situation, their Lordships could not expect other Powers to follow her example. She would in such case, be throwing the advantages which her connexion with Portugal had given her into other hands. Hitherto, all Europe had kept back, with a confidence which was highly honourable to this country, and which did not bear out the imputations which had been for some time, uttered respecting the footing of disrespect on which this country stood with other Powers in Europe. They had all acted with a most honourable spirit towards England, but it behoved this country to take the lead in Portuguese affairs, for if she did not, she would lose the commanding influence she had always possessed and deserved in Portugal. He thought, that whoever might be Sovereign of Portugal, if we rightly understood our own interest, we should be on a good footing with him. During the periods when this country had been most closely connected with Portugal, that country had not been blessed with the most amiable monarchs. But it was never necessary to look at the personal character of the kings of Portugal, when forming an intimate connexion with that country; and if it should be necessary to recognize that Government in favour of which the Portuguese people had declared, he had not the least doubt but that our mutual relations would be as cordial as ever they had been. The severities and excesses which had

611
taken place in Portugal in the administration of the Government, he deplored as much as any man. But we were not entirely guiltless ourselves on this subject. We remonstrated with the Portuguese Government, and protested against the course which we call severe and cruel, but the reply was obvious. The Portuguese Government said, "You keep us in a state of alarm and apprehension. You allow plotting to go forward in England against our institutions, and permit great bodies, against which we must protect ourselves, to exert themselves for our overthrow." Now self-protection, whether a government was legitimate or not, was the first of all duties, and we therefore must consider ourselves a little responsible for those severities of which we complained. The noble Viscount had adverted, as it was impossible not to expect he should do, to the event which took place off Terceira, and which he described in terms of unmeasured reprobation. But if that affair were fairly and impartially considered, the English Government would be found to have done nothing but what a strict sense of duty and obligation to preserve a neutral line of conduct compelled it to do. He would give the noble Viscount, in a very few words, the simple narrative of that affair. The noble Viscount had alluded to some correspondence which he supposed to have taken place before the Portuguese who were defeated at Oporto, arrived in England, and by which they were invited to come to this country. That was not the case. The simple facts were these. After the failure of the expedition which had set out to Oporto, and after the leaders of it had returned to this country because they found the sentiments of the whole Portuguese people against them, the troops, who had taken to flight without striking a blow for that Constitution which they were supposed to be so desirous of defending, went into Spain. The Spanish Government allowed them to enter its territory, but ordered them to quit it within one month. This condition was difficult to be complied with; indeed impossible. What then, did the English Government do in behalf of those unfortunate persons? We entreated the Spanish Government to extend the period, which was granted, and means were taken to bring the Portuguese to this country, where, on application, they were assured they would be received and enjoy protection and hospitality. Measures were prepared,
612
and even lodgings taken for their reception. They arrived at Plymouth, and soon amounted to upwards of three thousand. For some time they remained there quietly, until at last an application was made by the Brazilian Minister to his noble friend near him (the Duke of Wellington), requesting a convoy might be given to the Portuguese troops to go to the Azores. His noble friend of course could have no knowledge of foreign troops in England, and he told them they must disperse, or if they left the country, they must leave it as individuals and not as troops. Some time afterwards the Marquis Palmella, on being told that these troops must be dispersed in certain numbers in the neighbouring towns, declared that they preferred being sent to Brazil, and desired a convoy for them. Now, granting a convoy would have been an unjustifiable act, for we had no right to protect them against Portugal any where but in England. The leaders wanted the English Government to give a guarantee for the safety of these troops. That was refused, and after a great deal of difficulty and negotiation their departure (which had been strongly insisted on because it would relieve the apprehensions of the Portuguese government, we knowing that their existence at Plymouth, embodied and ready to depart, did, in fact, create fears in that Government, and consequently led to many of those acts which we deplore on the part of that Government, in order to protect itself against invaders), their departure was at last fixed, and they determined to go to Brazil. In the mean time a revolt took place in Terceira against the Government of Don Miguel, and applications were made for assistance. Now at that time there being no civil war in Terceira, the garrison only being in favour of Don Pedro, and the whole population being friendly to Don Miguel, could the English Government, he would ask, have permitted these troops to have gone in warlike preparation to take the Island, and at the same time have maintained that honest neutrality it professed? Impossible! We might have done so, to be sure, availing ourselves of Don Miguel's breach of engagement, and every thing that was odious in his personal character, or of the weakness of Portugal, which left us nothing to fear in the way of retaliation; but would these have been sufficient reasons for diverging from a course consistent with honesty, and he must say the only course

613
proper for the English Government to pursue, considering what it had declared should be its line of conduct from the first? It was quite monstrous to talk of these troops being helpless unarmed men. Their lordships all knew that soldiers well officered and well disciplined, having arms again provided for them, were as formidable as if they had never been deprived of arms; and it was notorious that such arms had been provided for them. Their remaining in that state at Plymouth was a very flagrant breach of neutrality on the part of England according to all the law of nations, and he would take the liberty of reading a passage from an author, which would show that, according to the general principles of the law of nations, it was incumbent on the English Government to disperse those troops. Vattel, speaking of the duties of neutral States, said, "On the other hand, it is certain that if my neighbour affords a retreat to my enemies, when defeated and too much weakened to escape me, and allows them time to recover and watch a favourable opportunity of making a second attack on my territories, this conduct, so prejudicial to my safety and interests, would be incompatible with neutrality. If, therefore, my enemies, on suffering a discomfiture, retreat into his country, although charity will not allow him to refuse them permission to pass in security, he is bound to make them continue their march beyond his frontiers as soon as possible, and not suffer them to remain on his territories on the watch for a convenient opportunity to attack me anew; otherwise he gives me a right to enter his country in pursuit of them." Their Lordships knew what effect those troops had on Portugal, because the Marquis Palmella had said that their dispersion would relieve that country from fears. Perhaps those apprehensions were unfounded, after what had taken place at Oporto; but when those troops departed they were told that they would be prevented taking part in the civil war raging in Terceira, being, as it were, fitted out from this country, where, if they had not been received, they would either have remained prisoners in Spain, or been captured by the troops of Don Miguel. Therefore it was quite impossible for them to go from this country furnished for an attack on any part of the Portuguese dominions. The noble Viscount had asked "why did we not stop them at our own port?" The reason was,
614
because they went on board with clearances for Brazil, where we were told they were going; but having been deceived before by a Brazilian agent with respect to the destination of some arms, which had been conveyed to Terceira, we told them that having been deceived once, we would not be deceived a second time. If the decision of the English Government had been otherwise, he conceived that its neutrality would have been completely illusive. We knew their intention, for though they had false clearances, we could not shut our eyes to their real destination. Some of those troops did go to Terceira, and the result was, that one person, an Englishman, was unfortunately killed. The masters of the vessels knew nothing of their destination, but were forced to go there. They implored the officers on board to allow them to change their course, but they were compelled to advance to Terceira; and it was only at the very last moment, and after every possible endeavour had been made, in vain, by the naval officer stationed on the spot, to induce the Commander of the troops to alter his course, that a shot was fired. It was then discovered that of these helpless, unarmed, and faithful followers of their lawful Queen, Donna Maria, three hundred out of six hundred were Germans and Danes, exported from Hamburgh and Lubec. These were the lawful and faithful subjects of her Majesty Donna Maria! Was not this open war? Could any thing be more absurd, then, than to say that England interfered with helpless individuals going to the territory of their lawful Sovereign? If we had done otherwise than we had, we should, to all intents and purposes, have been affording means and facilities to those troops to engage in the civil war at Terceira. No impartial man could look at the transaction, from the first to the last, without being struck with the fraud that had been committed. It was not, therefore, surprising that the language of some of the letters which passed on the occasion was stronger than suited the taste of the noble Lord opposite. The character of the whole proceeding was such, that if fairly viewed, would not only justify the measures which were taken, but actually show that they were necessary. There was another part of this transaction which was not a little curious. How were these troops maintained? how were they paid? Their Lordships, perhaps, were not aware

615
that these troops were actually maintained by English money, of which English creditors were actually defrauded! for the expense of the maintenance of those troops was defrayed from the dividends of that loan which had been remitted to England regularly by the Brazilian Government, for the purpose of being paid to British creditors. That money was intercepted in its course, and appropriated to this purpose, all participation in which the Brazilian Government disavowed. [The noble Earl here read an extract from a speech of the Brazilian Minister of Finance, informing the Brazilian Chamber that the dividends had been sent to England, and ought to have been placed in the Bank of that country, but might possibly have got into hands which had diverted the money from its proper course.] Those dividends, his Lordship observed, had never been deposited in the Bank of England, but had fallen into the hands of other parties, who had diverted them from their lawful destination. He repeated it was impossible for this country to have allowed the expedition to proceed against Terceira. The principle of neutrality which we had laid down we had uniformly observed throughout this contest, in spite of all the impressions which might arise from our having used the force of Government against what might appear a feeble party. Most scrupulously had that neutrality been observed towards the opponents of Don Miguel, and he did think that the present Portuguese Government had much more reason to complain of our conduct than its opponents. But in addition to the general law of nations, which obliged us to act as we did with respect to these troops, he was not quite sure that the Portuguese Government, on the strength of commercial Treaties which did exist, might not make a demand on this country, which it would be very difficult to meet under the words of the Treaty. He did assure their Lordships that every step taken in the business had been the result of a sense of duty, and not of any application from the present Government of Portugal; and he thought that when the Portuguese Government learned that persons calling themselves the agents of Don Pedro were allowed to exercise sovereign powers in this country, granting orders and rewards, it would have some reason to question our strict neutrality. It was his opinion that even if the
616
information asked for by the noble Lord were proper to be granted, yet no practical use could be made of it; but believing the information on the Table of the House quite sufficient to explain the actual state of the relations between England and Portugal, and Government having promised, when any change took place to afford ample information to their Lordships, he felt himself obliged to oppose the noble Lord's Motion.
Viscount Goderichconcurred in what had fallen from the noble Earl with respect to the bringing of the Portuguese Constitution to Europe. It was deemed indispensable to the tranquillity of Europe that Portugal should separate from Brazil, and Sir Charles Stuart was sent to Portugal to explain the necessity of such a proceeding to Don John, then the King of that Country, who assented to the principle, and directed Sir Charles Stuart to proceed to his son, Don Pedro, at Brazil, with a proposition to separate the countries. Before Sir Charles Stuart arrived there, Don John died, and he was thus placed in the peculiar situation of messenger from the King of Portugal to the King of Portugal; for Don Pedro became, by his father's death, the sovereign of that country. He, however, consented to adopt the measure of separation. There were, it is true, at that time, considerable differences respecting the mode, in case of future successions, how the separation was to be perpetuated. However, in the end, Don Pedro consented to this separation, and also, which was not at first contemplated—granted a Constitution as well. When in the sequel it became known to Mr. Canning that Sir Charles Stuart was to be the bearer of this Constitution to Lisbon, he wrote to that Ambassador, on the 12th of July, in these words:—"Every thing which you bring from Rio de Janeiro to Lisbon will be precisely what the Portuguese nation have a right to expect, except the Constitution;" and Mr. Canning then went on to state, in the same despatch, "but, in order that we should better inculcate on other Governments our disinclination to meddle in their internal affairs, it is expedient, in this respect, to remove all grounds of jealousy of British influence, and it is therefore his Majesty's desire that you should proceed to England as soon as you deliver into the hands of the Infanta Regent, and of the Portuguese

617
authorities, her brother's despatches." In the same spirit he wrote on the 12th of July to Sir William A'Court, that, as a foolish notion prevailed in France of the influence of Great Britain having been used to obtain the Portuguese Constitution, it had been ordered that Sir Charles Stuart should at once return home, to obviate any such impression. It was true, indeed, that, in a subsequent despatch, of the 17th of July, he did convey to Sir Charles Stuart an opinion, which certainly the Government of England had a right to adopt (but it was evidently adopted as the result of a balanced opinion), that the best course for Don Miguel to pursue appeared to be the fulfilment of the Charter. Mr. Canning, had, however, always left it open to the Portuguese nation to take this Constitution as they thought proper, hoping only that their decision would be eventually productive of their own happiness. This was the course which at the time, and under the circumstances, became a British Minister, who was bound to look with a prudent consideration to future events, and to the operation of this Constitution on the relations of Portugal with other States. Undoubtedly Mr. Canning, if he consulted his own feelings, wished for the acceptance of the Constitution; but at the same time he said as a British Minister, "We are no judges of what is fit for the internal arrangements of the people of Portugal; but as the separation of your kingdom has been accomplished by the force of our reasoning with Brazil, we think it reasonable you should adopt the views of Don Pedro at the time when he made that separation." This was the language of Mr. Canning; and so far as the British Government was concerned with this Constitution, he could not coincide in the inferences of the noble Mover, that we were bound on that account to interfere in a stronger manner after the delivery of the documents by the British Ambassador. It was undoubtedly true, as his noble friend had said, that troops were sent out to Portugal by Mr. Canning towards the end of the year 1826; but this step was taken without the slightest reference to the question of the Portuguese Constitution;—in fact, the substance of the orders to these troops was most unequivocally to refrain from all interference whatever in the internal struggles of the people of Portugal, but
618
to protect them, in virtue of the provisions of ancient Treaties, from any attack by foreign force. This was not to protect the Constitution from the opposition of the people for whom it was intended, for Great Britain was bound to do no such thing—such a principle having never in fact been suggested from beginning to end—but simply and exclusively to prevent Spain by force from overrunning Portugal. With reference to the character of the individual who had usurped the Government of that country, he had no objection to adopt it from the words of the noble Earl opposite; these were true and correct, and whatever was the complexion of his vices, the affliction merely concerned the Portuguese, not the British, except, perhaps, so far as they might be supposed to affect the latter in the progress of the external relations of the new kingdom. The effect of Don. Miguel's passions, however, was certainly to exhibit him offering a great insult to the Crown of England, one which the latter could only overlook in pity for the feebleness of the weaker State, and from a sense of magnanimity towards an individual at once mean, perfidious, and imbecile. And here, perhaps, he concurred with the noble Earl in thinking it best not to heap terms of obloquy upon princes, with whom hereafter it might be expedient for us to hold relations, even though such terms were the natural offspring of honest and well-regulated minds. He likewise agreed that England was not bound to have gone to war to repress the treachery of this prince; but he could not see that such a result would have necessarily followed the adoption of the policy so often recommended on this subject. Whether it were likely or not that less measured language had been used towards Don Miguel by the Government during these transactions, than appeared on the face of these papers, was what he could not say, for he could only form a judgment from the papers before him; but in exact proportion as he thought it would have been unwise for the Government to involve themselves in hostilities upon these points, in exactly the same degree was Parliament bound to look with jealousy at the course taken by that Government towards Don Miguel. There was one topic, the last touched upon by both his noble friends, on which he must say something, and, he lamented, in

619
a different lone from that of his preceding obvervations, he meant the affair at Terceira. He well recollected when, last year, the noble Lords opposite (the Ministers) pledged themselves to place on the Table all the Papers concerning it, they expressed their confidence that when this information was perused, it would be found to remove every doubt upon the propriety of what had been done, and compel their Lordships, by the demonstrative force of reasoning, to approve of the course which the Government had taken in the matter. He now begged to assure their Lordships that he had sat down to read these papers with the strongest desire to find that the honour of the Crown— not the particular character of this or that administration—had not been compromised by the affair at Terceira, and with the most conscientious anxiety to come to the same conclusion as the Government. He lamented, however, that the result did not correspond with his wishes, for he was obliged to confess that the Papers did not remove from his mind the unfavourable impressions he had previously imbibed, or suggest to him any train of reasoning to alter their force. In considering how far the conduct of Government was open to approval or disapprobation with reference to this business, they were bound to consider a little the circumstances under which it had occurred; the actual condition of Don Miguel at the time, and that of Donna Maria, relative to their respective connexion with the dominions of Portugal. The Brazilian Minister, Viscount Itabayana, had applied to the British Government to export arms to some foreign place, and his noble friend immediately gave that permission, accompanied with certain conditions; namely, that these arms should not be conveyed for use to any place where civil dissensions raged in the dominions of Portugal. Now this condition was accepted by Viscount Itabayana, but the noble Duke opposite afterwards said, that in conveying the arms to Terceira a breach of faith had been committed with him, for he thought they were intended for Brazil. He (Lord Goderich) confessed that on the face of these Papers he saw nothing to conduct him to that inference; and yet the right interpretation of a few passages in the letters which passed at the time, was of great importance in leading their Lordships to a right
620
view of what had subsequently happened. How could it be necessary for Viscount Itabayana to ask the permission of the British Government to export arms to Brazil? It was supposed, he was aware, that such permission was necessary, but the fact was exactly the reverse, and no licence was necessary. True, the law gave a power to the Crown to prevent, by an order of Council, the export of arms, but no such order existed at that time, and therefore none could have been in force, which required a licence to obviate. In fact, the only order in Council at the time in force was one which prohibited the export of arms to the coast of Africa, without a particular form of licence; and why? Not because of any troubles which were raging in many parts of Europe; not because of the contending relations of the Braganza family, but solely and expressly to prevent the export of arms for carrying on the slave trade on the coast of Africa. [hear] How could it then be contended that any permission was required to export arms to Brazil; none was necessary, nor up to this hour could the Government, as the law stood, prevent an agent of Don Miguel's from exporting arms to Portugal. The evident neutrality, then, was not to interfere at all in the exports of arms; instead of which the people of Terceira were prevented from having them, while the partisans of Don Miguel were not. The Government ought not to have been in ignorance of these distinctions, or to have mistaken the law which applied to them. He was prepared, indeed, to make a distinction between this application of Viscount Itabayana and the one subsequently made for the removal under convoy of the Portuguese troops in depot at Portsmouth, and upon that branch of the inquiry he perfectly agreed they were bound not to permit the assemblage of troops on the coast of England to arrange plans of hostility against a country towards which it professed and meant to be neutral. Indeed, he thought they were justified in putting an end to that depot where it was, and to afford these people a conveyance to the Azores. But he repeated, there were some singular things conveyed through the correspondence in their Lordships' hands, which must be well understood before they hastened to conclusions, and he begged permission to refer to some of them. On the 8th of December the noble Duke opposite, in a

621
letter dated from Goodwood, thus wrote to the Marquis Palmella:—"Some time ago one of the Brazilian Plenipotentiaries now in England, wrote me a letter to desire that convoy might be given to an expedition intended to be sent against the Azores." Now what meaning was to be attached to the word "against" except to convey the intention of hostility. [The Duke of Wellington here said "No."] Did the noble Duke mean to say that he disbelieved the nature of the application of the Marquis Barbacena, to which his phrase alluded? If so, then he (Viscount Goderich) could only remark that there was no evidence upon the face of these documents to justify such an imputation; for what were the words of the Marquis Barbacena when he applied to Ministers? When he wrote to the noble Duke opposite, on the 15th of October, he said, "The Secretary to the Government of the islands of the Azores has just arrived in London, authorized to demand with the greatest urgency, the immediate despatch of a part of the faithful Portuguese troops which are now in England, and whose presence in the above-mentioned islands would ensure their defence as well as their tranquillity, under the Government of the legitimate Sovereign, against the attack with which they are menaced by the illegitimate Government established in Portugal." So that the application was not for leave "to attack" the Azores, but to repel a threatened attack of them by the usurper. The movement of the Marquis Barbacena is, then, entirely defensive, and in answer to an application, in which he says he is bound to concur, he goes on thus—"Determined as I am to grant the succours which faithful subjects of the Queen demand from her, and persuaded that these succours, when once landed at Terceira, will be sufficient to put this island out of danger, I cannot conceal from myself the risks which the transports may run during their voyage, if they be not protected by some ships of war. Such, M. le Duc, is the strong motive which makes me have recourse to your Grace, for the purpose of demanding from his Britannic Majesty, in the name of the Queen, the convoy of a ship of war, to escort from England, to a possession which remains subject to the legitimate authority of her Most Faithful Majesty, a part of the loyal troops which are at Plymouth, the succours in question not to be
622
landed at Terceira, in the unfortunate event of that island having fallen under the aggression with which it is threatened. From what is above stated, you will see, M. le Duc, that there is no question of a hostile undertaking, but simply as a measure of defence, dictated by the feeling of that strict obligation which is imposed upon every sovereign to protect his subjects." This was the tone of the letter of which, when afterwards writing to the Marquis de Palmella, the noble Duke said it conveyed an intention of attacking the Azores—a wrong impression evidently from the words employed on that occasion. The noble Duke, in his answer to the Marquis Barbacena on the 18th of October, says, after describing the Portuguese as not in the quality of troops, but of individuals —"I also announce to your Excellency, that His Majesty's Government cannot permit that England should be made an arsenal or a fortress, from whence any one may make war as he may think proper. If those Portuguese subjects desire to make war at the Azores instead of doing so in Portugal, of which they have the choice, let them go there as individuals if they please. But I must candidly tell you, Monsieur le Marquis, that it cannot be permitted that individuals, of whatever character they may be, should prepare warlike expeditions in the ports and arsenals of this country, in order to make attacks upon others." Well, then, in the end, they did go out as individuals. [The Earl of Aberdeen.—"I must deny that."] They surely went without arms, and in ships exposed to every risk; he could not, therefore, concur in opinion that they had departed in any other character than as individuals. When the noble Duke used the term individuals, he never could have meant that it was necessary they should depart each man in a separate ship. If he meant that six hundred of them should not go out in any single ship, he ought to have told them so in the first instance, and not to have led them into an error, the consequence of which was, their exposure to the reckless consequences of Captain Walpole's attack. He intended to make no complaints against the refusal of the Government to give a guarantee, or convoy, to secure the escort of these Portuguese to the Brazils, and therefore he should come to the letter of the 12th of December, from the noble Duke to the Marquis de Palmella, in which were these

623
words:—"His Majesty's servants have been informed by me of your assurances that these troops are going to the Brazils, and they rely upon them. But I have to inform you, that as your orders may be disobeyed, other authorities may interfere in the disposal of these troops. The King's servants have thought proper to advise his Majesty to give orders that effectual measures may be adopted to prevent any attack upon the Portuguese dominions in Europe by any of these troops." He could not help observing, that the meaning of this passage in the noble Duke's letter was very vague, for geographers had differed, whether the Azores were in Europe or Africa. If not in Europe, then they were not comprehended in the prohibition: if in peace with their lawful Sovereign, then the Portuguese had no right to be opposed in proceeding towards them. And it was on this same day (the 12th of December) that there issued, in the shape of instructions from the Admiralty, Captain Walpole's warrant to burn, sink, and destroy any of the ships bearing these Portuguese to Terceira. They were charged with intending to make an attack on that Island. This was quite contrary to the fact, as conveyed in the applications of the Marquisses Barbacena and Palmella, the latter personage being likewise exposed to an imputation of telling an untruth on the occasion. This imputation was, he thought, an act of great cruelty, when directed against an honourable man, for such he knew he was from his conduct during many years in the discharge of high diplomatic functions in this country;— against a man, too, in the hour of his misfortune, when filing from eminent station, and reduced to exile and beggary because of his fidelity and honour: it was, he repeated, cruel to impute such conduct to a person so placed, and who on the face of these papers, instead of deserving to be accused of having practised delusion, had stated most distinctly that the destination of these troops had been altered from Brazil to Terceira,—it was made voluntarily, and without the least knowledge of the order issued from the Admiralty. It was right to notice that another reason given, during these discussions, why the Portuguese ought not to be permitted to go to Terceira, was, the divided state of parties on that island. Where was the proof of these alleged divisions? The first
624
intimation of them was given in the noble Duke's letter of the 30th December. Although in the Marquis de Palmella's, on the 20th, information of the perfect tranquillity of the island was conveyed, yet the noble Duke writes—"The Azores are part of the dominions of Portugal, and we know that a civil war is now carried on in those Islands, particularly in that of Terceira." Where was, he repeated, the proof of that fact, and of the announcement to these Portuguese that they should not be permitted to land there?—[The Duke of Wellington—"Why in the very sentence you are quoting."—Lord Holland.—"Yes, at the end."]—He had not overlooked the words, "they will not be allowed to land there;" but he meant to ask, why the announcement had not been previously made, and the necessary orders issued to warn these Portuguese of the risk to which they were exposing themselves before they had embarked and incurred it? He admitted that it was possible his reasoning might be overturned by a fresh statement but it could not upon the information then before Parliament, and he spoke from those official documents presented by his Majesty's command, and not from newspaper reports or unauthorized communications. In them there was not the least proof that the Portuguese were early warned to avoid Terceira, or that any dissensions raged on that island. The noble Duke had, indeed, said that the Azores were part of the dominions of Portugal; so they had been for nearly 200 years, but they were at this time perfectly tranquil. Terceira was held for the legitimate sovereign, Donna Maria da Gloria —she had the real actual possession. Don Miguel had de facto seized the Crown of Portugal; and unless it was meant to be contended that he had on that account a right de jure to its distant possessions, there was no pretence for depriving the Queen of Portugal of her legitimate rights of sovereignty where they were duly administered. She had reality of possession and force of law there at least, and what was against her? Not a de facto, but a pretended claim de jure on the part of the usurper. The noble Viscount proceeded to observe, that he thought the Marquis Palmella had been most cruelly treated. He showed nothing like duplicity in any part of his conduct, and he knew that he was a most respectable person, from often having had occasion to see

625
and correspond with him in his diplomatic capacity. The Marquis Palmella was now reduced from a high and affluent situation to a state of exile and poverty, and it was cruel to add to all this the charge of duplicity and deception. It was said that the Commanders of the vessels who carried out the Portuguese troops did not know their destination, and that they were not aware that they had been prohibited from landing at Terceira. If so, the Ministers were so much the more to blame; for these Commanders ought to have been informed of it, more particularly when the order of the Admiralty was issued, commanding our ships of war to burn, sink, or destroy (for such the order was in effect) any vessels that should attempt to land at Terceira. In consequence of this neglect the men and the vessels of this country might have been destroyed by the fire of our own ships of war. If that warning had been given, probably the ships would never have sailed, and the attempt would never have been made.—If, in spite of the warning, the parties had persevered, it might have been possible to have prevented it, by an act of authority. He might be told that Government could not have prevented it, inasmuch as the act was no violation of the municipal law; and perhaps, therefore, an act of authority might have been required; but he (Lord Goderich) should be glad to hear what right was given by the municipal law to treat the King's subjects in a manner not warranted by the law of the land. The law of nations which might apply to the Portuguese could not extend to British subjects, who might all have fallen victims to the rash and unadvised order of the Admiralty. The noble Earl (Aberdeen) had talked of the rashness of Count Saldanha, and of the loss of one life as the consequence of it. Whether his courage ought to be praised, or whether he ought to be blamed for his rashness and obstinacy, was a matter of no consequence—one shot had destroyed one life; but it was to be recollected that instead of a single shot a whole broadside might have been discharged, and not only the six hundred Portuguese but the British crew and the ship might have been sent to the bottom. Providentially that issue had not followed, but the principle was the same, and such might have been the melancholy result of the order of the Admiralty. He was sure that his noble friends would have had their minds wrung with the bitterest
626
affliction if anything of the kind had happened, and then they would have had to exclaim, "Good God! that we had but thought of warning these people before they went on this fatal expedition!" He had thought himself compelled to make these observations, but he would ten thousand times rather have had his judgment convinced by what had fallen from the noble Earl, which would have prevented his arriving at a conclusion so painful. He was sure that his noble friend would do him the justice to admit that he had not described conduct which he disapproved, in terms inconsistent with the courtesy due from one public man to another; or with the consideration due to the dignity of their Lordships and the importance of the question; he had discharged an irksome duty; and he might assert, with deep regret and entire sincerity, that he wished to God the record of the transaction to which he had alluded, could be blotted from our annals.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he could neither concur with the noble Mover, nor with the noble Viscount who had just taken his seat. That noble Viscount, in particular, seemed to have gone over the papers to which he had referred so repeatedly by some system of cross-reading, and had arrived at a conclusion corresponding with that mode of perusal. The House ought to remember the statement of Mr. Canning, when he proposed that troops should be sent to Portugal. In terms stronger than any other man could use, he expressly asserted that they were not to act either for or against the Constitution—they were only to defend the country against invasion by the troops of Spain. What reason, then, could the Portuguese have for thinking that this country had taken what the noble Viscount was pleased to call the British-Portuguese Constitution under its special protection? His noble relative (Lord Stuart of Rothsay) when Sir C. Stuart, had only brought the Constitution to Portugal in his capacity of a Portuguese Plenipotentiary; and when the Emperor of Brazil was anxious to consult him on the subject, he was too prudent to consent to give any advice, so that that circumstance could not be construed into an approval in the face of Mr. Canning's direct disavowal. The simple question, was this:—When Don Miguel reached Portugal, and a party, which seemed the strongest, made its appearance adverse to

627
the Constitution, was Great Britain called upon to interfere, and to force it upon the people? He denied that she was so called upon, and he denied that if any British Minister had attempted to force it on the Portuguese he would have been supported by the British nation. This country was bound to remain strictly neutral; she had remained so, and if the Portuguese were deceived in their expectations, they were alone to blame. He agreed that there was something painful to the feelings in what had occurred at Terceira; but how was this Government in fault? That, and that only was the real point in issue. The island was not solely and absolutely in the possession of the King of Portugal, for a civil war was raging there at the time, and the mere use of the word "attack," in one of the documents, did not merit the importance attached to it by the noble Viscount. His, noble friend (Lord Goderich) had argued that some warning ought to have been given; and this country had been held up, with respect to that transaction, as guilty of a most scandalous breach of good faith towards Portugal. All he could say was, that if the conduct of the British Government towards other Powers was no worse than it had been towards Portugal, there would not be much reason to complain. He denied again that Mr. Canning had ever upheld such a notion, as that we were bound to assist any foreign nation in maintaining or destroying its Constitution. His liberal mind was naturally inclined to the extension of liberal principles; but he always maintained that Great Britain could not interfere to promote that extension. On these grounds he should vote against the Motion.
The Earl of Carnarvoncould not allow the question to come to a vote without offering a few remarks upon the peculiar situation in which this country was placed with regard to Portugal. He did not intend to uphold the policy of one Minister against that of another Minister; but to review the conduct of Great Britain towards Portugal as a whole, and to consider whether the natives of that country had been treated by this country in a manner to inspire affection and confidence, and to lead the rest of the world to believe that Great Britain had acted with becoming consistency and energy. He well understood the doctrine of non-interference; and in nine instances out of
628
ten he should approve it; but he could not understand, in the condition of the relations between this Kingdom and Portugal, between a powerful and a weak State, with the capital of the latter occupied by the armies of the former—how, after the danger of invasion, for which those armies were sent out, was at an end, we could allow our troops, like Ambassadors, to remain mere calm spectators of the transactions before their eyes. Sir C. Stuart had acted, first the part of a witness, and afterwards that of a letter-carrier; at one moment he was a Brazilian, and at another a Portuguese plenipotentiary. That was a matter of comparatively slight importance; but there was another circumstance too much kept out of view in the course of this night's debate; he alluded to the fact, that Great Britain had acknowledged the Queen of Portugal—and in what relation did this country stand therefore with regard to the dynasty of Braganza? It had been said that we ought not to interfere in the affairs of Portugal.—Not interfere with the affairs of Portugal! What had been our conduct towards that State? Let Don Miguel answer the question. As a rebel to his father we conveyed him a prisoner to France, and from France he was sent to Vienna. After an involuntary residence there, after being affianced to the Queen of Portugal, and after the most solemn protestations, he had been allowed to return to his native country by the agency and interposition of Great Britain; and yet with these facts before our eyes we were to remain tame witnesses of the overthrow of that very system we had been endeavouring to support. By some artifice of special pleading it might be attempted to escape from the difficulty arising out of interference at one time and non-interference at another, yet there was not a nation in the civilized world to whom Great Britain had not rendered herself ridiculous by sending a military force to Portugal to do nothing but to keep up a species of mock neutrality, and defeat the very end for the accomplishment of which she had so long laboured. The noble Earl (Aberdeen) had attempted to establish a case on the law of nations; he had made a pompous reference, and had read a learned quotation from Vattel; but the only question to be considered was, whether what had happened at Terceira was an attack, or were the Portuguese

629
conveying themselves to a friendly shore where no attack was necessary? With their ultimate destination we had nothing-to do. A great deal had been said of "a civil war raging in Terceira," but nobody had instanced a single battle; it might have "raged" in the correspondence of the noble Duke and the Marquis Palmella, but assuredly it had not existed, much less "raged," anywhere else. Of this he was quite certain, that all England, that was out of office, had rejoiced in the glorious victory of Count Villaflor over the expedition sent out by Don Miguel, and it was unalloyed by any necessity, on the part of the conqueror, to turn his arms against a single inhabitant of Terceira. When the Portuguese, who had been so inhospitably treated in England, were landed in France, they were allowed to proceed without molestation to Terceira, and Don Miguel himself had never dreamt of complaining of a violation of the law of nations. Although many parts of the speech of the noble Foreign Secretary had given him (Lord Carnarvon) much pain, one portion of it had excited in his mind unmixed satisfaction. The noble Earl had distinctly stated, that Great Britain would never recognise the usurper of Portugal, even as King de facto, until he had done full justice and made complete reparation to the unhappy victims of his tyranny. Englishmen knew little of the degree of suffering to which those victims had been exposed: they were not merely detained for safe custody, they were immured in the most loathsome dungeons, and if they were ever restored to freedom, many of them could never be restored to health. Of Don Miguel himself he would not attempt to speak; he should fail in expressing his sense of disgust and hatred, and after the terms employed by the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, all he (Lord Carnarvon) could say would appear like apology, if not panegyric. Although the usurper had now gained footing, there was a time when Great Britain might have had the whole army of Portugal on her side, while Miguel would have been left with only his priests, panders, and parasites. He was aware that the Motion of his noble friend would require some modification; but, in the general statement, that further information was required to vindicate the character and honour of this country, he heartily concurred.
The Marquis of Lansdowneobserved that after what had been already said, it was not necessary for him to add anything to justify, and little to explain, the vote he intended to give. If, by supporting the Motion, it could be supposed that he meant at all to sanction the principle, that Great Britain ought to have interfered to guarantee the Constitution of Portugal, he would vote against it, and he trusted the time would never come when Ministers would advise the King to guarantee a Constitution of any kind for any Foreign State. He would also rather oppose the Motion of his noble friend than that his vote in its favour should lead to the slightest implication, that under the circumstances it was fit to recognise the authority of Don Miguel. The rule of that tyrannical usurper was repugnant to the feelings of the whole kingdom, and it was needless for him to add a single touch to the picture drawn by the noble Secretary of State. What he understood to be sought by the Motion was this,—that without interrupting negotiations, for none were pending—without committing Great Britain to any future course of conduct, for no such course had been pointed out— the House and the country ought at least to be furnished with the fullest information before a step was taken that could not be adopted without pain and regret. What, he would ask, had been done to meet this great evil? During the last two years our foreign relations had undergone an alarming change; at one end of Europe a mighty State, the maintenance of which was once considered essential to the balance of power, had been reduced to a state of dependence and vassalage; while at the other end those friendly relations, the preservation of which our wisest Statesmen had held necessary to the welfare of this country, had been torn asunder. Thus circumstanced, was it fitting that Parliament should show indifference to the important events passing before its eyes? If it consented merely to look on with apathy, notwithstanding what had been said on a former night by the noble Duke regarding the inexhaustible wealth and resources of this country, and her capability of meeting a new war should it arise, people would be found on the continent malicious enough to attribute our forbearance to other causes than indifference. With regard to our existing relations with Portugal, he

631
would not fatigue the House by referring to the many great authorities who concurred with Lord Chatham, that it was essential to our interests to maintain a good understanding with that country: he would appeal only to that event which had been too much lost sight of in the course of debate—he meant the manner in which the Ministry of this country-had wisely interfered, in order, for its own sake, to produce a separation between Portugal and the Brazils. To effect this object, not only had Sir C. Stuart been sent to Lisbon, but the Government of Great Britain had otherwise interposed, and had not allowed the inhabitants of Portugal and the Brazils to settle the question for themselves. When the separation was settled we became interested in the terms of that separation, and without meddling with the Constitution, we declared to Portugal that we had a strong interest in the accomplishment of the arrangement; and indirectly and directly too we encouraged those who through all history, from generation to generation, had been known as the British party in Portugal, to declare for the Queen and for that species of government which Don Pedro had annexed as the condition of his abdication. it was because Great Britain attached value to that Constitution that she became a party to the arrangements at Vienna, by which Don Miguel was relieved from the just sentence under which he was then suffering, on condition of giving it his support. It was also to be recollected that these steps were taken in accordance with those who had filled the highest situations of the State in Portugal, and he was not to be told that because there was nothing technically and absolutely binding, there existed no moral obligations towards the people. Those who had zealously acted in accordance with the views of Great Britain, ought not to be cut adrift merely because we were not bound by the specific letter, of a Treaty. He was not disposed to enter into the general affairs of Portugal; but as to the particular transaction at Terceira he must make a few observations, because he agreed with his noble friend (Lord Goderich), that the honour and character of the country were implicated. In the first place he must declare that the conduct of Great Britain was not conformable to any recognized law of nations; and when the noble Secretary of State made a solitary quotation
632
from a solitary author upon the point, he did not seem aware that not a single word of it applied to an attack upon the subjects of a friendly power upon the open seas, on their way to one of the possessions of that friendly power. If Don Miguel had been the very reverse of what proved to be his real character—if he had been faithful instead of treacherous, and mild instead of cruel—and if this country had been anxious, on account of his many virtues, to show him all acts of friendship, he should have contended that Great Britain would not have been justified in thus pursuing his interests across the Atlantic.—He had the acknowledgement of the noble Duke himself on this point. The noble Duke had well and strongly said in that House, that when application was made to Government for a guarantee for the ships in which the Portuguese troops were going to cross the Atlantic, the answer was, that no such guarantee could be given, for that his Majesty was not king of the Atlantic. Why, then, his Majesty not being king of the Atlantic, did his ships of war attack those loyal Portuguese troops, proceeding to the spot to which their sovereign had ordered them to proceed; proceeding to a spot in which uninterrupted loyalty had prevailed? No civil war, nor any appearance of civil war, had occurred in Terceira. Of that fact he had the best possible information. He held in his hand a letter from a distinguished general officer in that island, who declared that during the whole time that he had been there the Government of the Queen had been universally acknowledged in Terceira. Yet that was the place which it was pretended by his Majesty's Government the loyal Portuguese troops from this country were proceeding to attack! Their lordships would also recollect, that in the last Session the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated, as a kind of counterpoise to what had been said on the other side of the House, that the people of Terceira were disloyal, and intended to form themselves into a republic, and that with that view they had prepared a jacobinical coin. He (the Marquis of Lansdowne) had since seen a specimen of this coin; and so far was it from being jacobinical, that it bore the superscription of Queen Maria on one side, and the usual legend of Portugal on the other. The noble Secretary, therefore, was not

633
justified in attributing to any disloyal feeling at Terceira the interference of his Majesty's Government; an interference from which the French Government, though much less bound both by feelings of honour and considerations of interest, had abstained. There could not be a doubt that under the existing circumstances of Europe, the interest of Portugal ought to be dearer to this country than ever. The noble Secretary of State did not appear to have adverted to the; different situation in which we were placed with respect to the Continent by the events of the last two years. In that period we had seen the whole power of; Turkey, "our ancient Ally," reduced, If we calculated on creating any counterbalance to our loss of influence on the Continent by that occurrence, it could only be by creating an independent power in Greece. In the mean time the interests of Portugal ought to be considered as identified with our own. We had permitted France to obtain a preponderating influence in Spain. If it were our interest—as no one could doubt that it was—to exclude the other continental powers from the Peninsula it was more than ever our interest to maintain our ascendancy in Portugal. That ascendancy must depend on the feelings of gratitude and confidence entertained in that part of the Peninsula by those who had looked, who still looked, and who, he hoped, ever would look, to England for friendly cooperation and assistance. He trusted, therefore, that if by any "untoward event," by any inevitable misfortune, the consequences of which might, he hoped, still be averted—that if, from causes which were no longer in our power of control, although they had once been so, we were to be brought to a step humiliating to our own Sovereign and injurious to Portugal, and be compelled to acknowledge a prince who had shown himself faithless to the one, and a curse to the other, we should at least escape from the utter and disgraceful sacrifice of our honour by stipulating for the security of the lives and property of these unfortunate individuals who had been induced by a succession of appearances on our part, to embark their fortunes in a cause which had, unhappily, proved unsuccessful; and who in adhering to that cause, conceived that they were adhering to their British connexion. He would vote for his noble friend's Motion,
634
because it would enable the House to become possessed of the circumstances which had driven the country into the painful situation in which it was placed.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he felt himself bound to say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the noble Mover for the papers, and the noble Lords who had followed him in the debate, particularly in relation to the transaction at Terceira. The noble Mover had said, that we were bound to the maintenance of the Constitution in Portugal on account of the part we had taken in its establishment, and the interest we had manifested in its success. It was hardly necessary for him to add a word in proof of the contrary fact, after the observations of his noble friend (the Foreign Secretary), and of the noble Marquis who had just addressed the House. He could assure their Lordships that if there was one point on which Mr. Canning was more anxiously earnest than another, it was in enforcing the opinion that England would not, and had no right, to interfere in upholding the Constitution in Portugal. If there was any subject on which that right hon. Gentleman took more pains than another, and the mass of correspondence on the subject was almost incredible, it was to impress the Powers of Europe with the conviction that the Constitution of Portugal was not the offspring of English influence, and that Sir Charles Stuart's agency in its being brought to Europe was solely in his capacity of Minister to the King of Portugal, and not as Ambassador from the King of England. Mr. Canning repeatedly urged the Powers of Europe to remain tranquil, and to aid the establishment of the Constitution by the countenance extended by their several Ambassadors at Lisbon, on the assurance that England would not at all interfere in its maintenance, and that it did not, as he had said, originate with the British Government. If, therefore, Mr. Canning were to be believed, we had no right to interfere in the matter; and as a consequence no steps to the enforcement of the Constitution should be taken.—But then it was said, by the noble Marquis (Lansdowne) and the noble Viscount (Melbourne) on the second bench, though you are not pledged to guarantee the Constitution, yet you are bound to protect it by the part taken by your Ambassador in the earlier stages of its existence. The question then was, in what capacity was Sir Charles

635
Stuart's name mixed up in the matter? It was not that of Ambassador from the King of England. Sir Charles Stuart went to the Emperor of Brazil as mediator of peace between his Brazilian Majesty, and his father, the King John of Portugal; being thus at the same time Ambassador to the former, and Minister Plenipotentiary to King John. The treaty of peace was signed and ratified, showing that Sir Charles was not, as had been stated, Ambassador from the King of Portugal to the King of Portugal, but to the Emperor of Brazil, to whom he at the same time acted the part of mediator. Dates would show, moreover, even if Mr. Canning's words were not sufficiently in the negative, that it would have been actually impossible for him to be the originator of the Portuguese constitution. King John of Portugal died on the 10th of March; the event of his death was known in this country on the 26th of that month; the intelligence reached Brazil on the 23rd of April; and on the 10th of May (the matter was concluded on the 6th of May so far as Sir Charles Stuart was concerned) the Constitution was promulgated by Don Pedro. Before the intelligence of King John's death had reached Brazil the Emperor had solicited Sir Charles Stuart's advice on the Constitution, and on his abdication of the Crown of Portugal in favour of his daughter; but Sir Charles very prudently abstained from giving any advice, and Don Pedro himself completed the act of abdication and the Charter of the Constitution. This act of abdication, it should be borne in mind, originated entirely with Don Pedro, for it was the object of Don John to secure the succession in his favour; and though the clause of abdication was introduced when the treaty was about to be ratified, King John addressed him afterwards, "My son and successor to the Crown of Portugal." After this he believed an application was made here by the Marquis Palmella, to have the succession of Don Pedro to the Crown of Portugal ratified by the British Government, so completely was the whole transaction not the result of British interference. Don Pedro, as their Lordships knew, had the Constitution so framed as to render it impossible to hold the two governments, so he resigned one in favour of his daughter. He mentioned these facts in order to show that dates alone would prove that we had no hand in the framing
636
of the Constitution which Don Pedro granted to Portugal. It was true that the tenor of Mr. Canning's letters of the 12th and 16th of July expressed a certain qualified approbation of the Constitution but Mr. Canning did no more than express his approval of its principles, telling the Portuguese to make their own unbiased selection, and whatever that should be, the British Government would acknowledge it, with a view to the happiness and security of the Portuguese people. He recommended to them the Constitution of Don Pedro, but he went no further, and never pledged himself or the country to its support. He further took pains, he repeated, to convince the Powers of Europe that the Constitution was not his nor the British Government's measure, but was the free act of the Brazilian Emperor.
The noble Duke proceeded next to contend that Don Miguel's regency was by no means owing to British influence at Vienna. The fact was, he said, that Don Miguel's being appointed had nothing to do with the transactions at Vienna. Don Miguel was first commanded by his brother to go to the Court of Rio Janeiro, but he refused. After that, and without at all consulting us on the subject—he (the Duke of Wellington) was not then in office, but could find no traces of any consultation, and believed there were not any— the Emperor of the Brazils appointed Miguel his Regent. It was true there was a conference between the ambassadors at Vienna on the appointment, and at this conference the British ambassador attended, but solely to induce Don Miguel to observe the terms of the Treaty under which he was appointed Regent, by shewing him that it had received the sanction of the British Government. It also was thought that his visiting England on his way to his regency would ensure his adherence to the oath he had taken, and conduce to preserve alive amicable relations between this country and Portugal. He said, then, that it was not owing to the transactions at Vienna, but to those at Brazil that Don Miguel was appointed Regent. We were no more than the depositories of his promise, that he would faithfully execute the Treaty under which he had been appointed Regent, and so far as he has violated that promise he had offered an indignity to his Majesty. But we had no claim on him whatsoever beyond this promise from any thing that

637
took place at Vienna. There were circumstances certainly which arose out of the Treaty of Vienna; but these had nothing to do with Don Miguel's appointment; and for this simple reason—that Don Pedro had no Ambassador at all at that Court. It was true, we took upon ourselves to request of Don Pedro the execution of the act of abdication; but though many months have elapsed since we made that request, the abdication has not arrived in Portugal, not even at this day. Much had been said about our abandoning what is called the British party in Portugal. Now, if any man had a right to say, that he was better acquainted than any other with the state of that country, it was himself, and he could confidently say, that he knew of no English party in Portugal. He certainly knew good Portuguese, and he knew of others who joined the French at the time of the invasion of Portugal by France, but a distinct English party never came within his knowledge. He believed, indeed, that the whole Portuguese nation, with some individual exceptions,—chiefly among those who had returned after the peace of 1814,—were anxious to preserve the alliance of this country, being sensible of the benefits which it conferred on them. It was a mistake—a gross mistake—one, indeed, which it was cruel to encourage—to assert that the force sent out in 1826 was sent out to enforce the Constitution. It had a very different object; and he defied noble Lords to infer, from the speeches that had been made by Ministers at the time in either House of Parliament, any design from that armament which had such an object. The noble Earl (Carnarvon) blamed the Government because the army was allowed to remain in Portugal after the necessity which occasioned the sending of it thither had ceased to exist—namely, after the cessation of foreign hostility. True, the army was allowed to remain in Portugal, but he believed that those who gave permission that the army should remain there did what was right and acted from the best motives. They were entreated to leave the army in Portugal by the head of the Government of that country. This request was made to Government about the beginning of September, when the army had received directions to withdraw. Don Miguel was expected to proceed to Portugal in December, and it would have been unfair, unkind, and opposed to that
638
spirit of conciliation which he hoped would always exist between this country and her allies, not to have consented to leave the army in Portugal till that period. The vessels which escorted Don Miguel to Portugal were destined to bring the army back to England, and in point of fact the army did embark in those ships. Don Miguel requested of our Ambassador that the army might remain some time longer; but the Ambassador refused, and the whole of the army was embarked, with the exception of a small body of troops which the Ambassador detained till he received further instructions from his Government. The noble Earl had stated that the British army ought to have prevented those acts of which he complained that Don Miguel had been guilty at the very earliest period after his arrival in Portugal. The officer commanding the army had been repeatedly directed not only by the Government which sent out the troops, but by the Government which succeeded it, to keep himself clear of all interference in the internal concerns of Portugal. Indeed, the only case in which he was instructed to interfere was in defence of the royal family, not excluding Don Miguel himself, because when those instructions were given, Don Miguel was not suspected. The noble Viscount (Melbourne) had said that our Ambassador ought to have been recalled. He (the Duke of Wellington), however, felt the highest satisfaction in acknowledging the great services which our Ambassador rendered to his country and to Europe on that occasion, by preserving unanimity in all the diplomatic corps, from the commencement to the latest moment of these proceedings. It should be borne in recollection, that the first acts of Don Miguel were not of so flagrant a character as those which he committed afterwards. If the right hon. Gentleman who represented his Majesty at Lisbon had withdrawn in consequence of Don Miguel's first acts, would his example have been followed by the Ambassadors from Austria and France, or the other principal Courts of Europe? Would not his secession have created division in the councils of the different Sovereigns with respect to this important question? and should we not have been involved in greater difficulties than we were placed in at the present moment? In his opinion great merit was due to the right hon. Gentleman for having waited and pro-

639
ceeded gradually, step by step, carrying with him throughout the proceedings the opinions and acts of his diplomatic colleagues, and thus giving to the united councils of Europe, headed by himself as the representative of this country, that unanimity and vigour which those councils ought always to exhibit. He must do the Ambassador the justice to say, that though he took those steps himself, his noble friend, the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and his noble friend whom he saw just now on the opposite bench (Earl Dudley), gave him directions from time to time in nearly exact conformity with the measures which he had taken, and on the same principle upon which he had acted. He now came to consider the case of Terceira. Before he did so, however, he begged to remind their Lordships of the situation in which this country stood after our army and Ambassador had been withdrawn from Portugal. We still remained, with our Consul-General at Lisbon. —we still remained bound by treaties with Portugal,—we still remained in the enjoyment of all our commercial relations. In this situation we were necessarily bound to observe the strictest neutrality,—first of all, with respect to the civil war which was going on at the moment of the departure of our army; and next, with respect to the contest which might be expected to ensue between Don Miguel and Don Pedro. In adopting this course his Majesty's Government followed the practice which had been observed by this country for many years preceding. He did not mean to say that our treaties with Portugal would not justify us in interfering to any extent in respect of any matters regarding the internal concerns of that country and the family of Braganza; but. for above one hundred and twenty years, and more particularly of late years, we had entirely avoided mixing ourselves up with any of the internal affairs of that kingdom. Since 1820 repeated applications had been made to this country to interfere in the internal affairs of Portugal. An application had been made to this country by King John, which, under the terms of our treaties with Portugal it was extremely difficult to resist, for assistance to enable him to get the better of the rebellion existing in the Brazils; and headed by his then son and heir. Another application was made by the republicans, who at one time had pos-
640
session of Lisbon, and endeavoured to establish a republic in Portugal. This party wanted us to guarantee the constitution and prevent foreign attack. We, however, had kept all these applications at a distance, and resisted them. He therefore could say, that in conformity with the practice of this country, particularly of late years, since 1820 and 1821, we were bound to avoid all interference in the internal concerns of Portugal. With respect to the disputes between King Pedro and Don Miguel, we had distinctly stated that between two branches of the house of Braganza we could not interfere. It was under these circumstances that a body of men were sent to this country who very soon after their arrival were organized at Plymouth on the footing of troops. The first communication which he received on the subject of these troops was from the Marquis Barbacena, who proposed that they should be sent to Terceira under the convoy of his Majesty's fleet. His noble friend opposite (Viscount Goderich) said that in his answer to the Marquis Barbacena's communication, he had misrepresented the object of his application. He was not aware that he had done so. He begged to call the attention of their Lordships to this circumstance, that throughout the correspondence he had never made use of the word Terceira. He considered the Azores as a whole, and that particular fact was a complete answer to most of the observations of his noble friend and the noble Marquis. He had considered the Azores as a whole, and he must say he should not have performed his duty towards this country, which was in the situation of a neutral, if he had allowed a body of troops to assemble here, and be taken to the Azores, in order to carry on war against the Sovereign de facto of those Azores. He would have had nothing to say to troops going to the Azores from France, or the Netherlands, or any other place except this country; but he could not permit them to sail from here without being guilty of a breach of neutrality. His noble friend stated, that in a subsequent part of the correspondence his noble friend the Secretary for Foreign affairs had considered the Azores as part of Africa, whilst he (the Duke of Wellington) considered it as part of Europe. He could assure his noble friend, that when he was speaking of the Azores, he never considered whether

641
they were part of Africa or of Europe. His object was, to prevent a breach of neutrality, and it mattered not to him whether the Azores were situated in Africa or in Europe. His noble friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had been supposed to have given permission to the troops to proceed to the Azores, because he considered the Azores to be part of Africa. Whoever read the correspondences would be convinced that that was not the fact. In his (the Duke of Wellington's) letter, he exposed the indecent subterfuge which was attempted to be practised on his noble friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, by representing that the persons who were desirous of proceeding to Terceira were unarmed men. He showed that they had arms with them. His noble friend opposite contended that the Government had committed a breach of the law of nations, by preventing those persons from landing at Terceira. He did not intend to argue the question with reference to the law of nations, about which much difference of opinion prevailed. He would, however, mention, that according to the best opinion he could obtain in this country, that act was not a breach of the law of nations. His noble friend said, that the Government ought to have given notice to the captain and seamen of the vessel, that they would not be allowed to proceed to Terceira. The captain and seamen were not exactly ignorant of the determination of Government on that point. They took out bills for Brazil; but they had not sufficient provisions and water on board to last during a third of the voyage to Brazil. Could it be pretended that they did not know what they were about,—that they did not know where they were going V He admitted, however, that this was no excuse for the Government. But what happened? As soon as they appeared off the Azores, they received notice. One of the captains of his Majesty's ships told them that they must not go in. What was their conduct? Did they say that they would not go in? No. They continued their course, notwithstanding the notice they had received on the spot, until they were obliged to turn about by a superior force. Was not a notice at sea as good as a notice in port? If not, the Government certainly was to blame; but he believed the majority of their Lordships would be of opinion one notice was
642
just as good as another. It was clear that notice was given before a shot was fired, and that, notwithstanding the notice, the parties to whom it was given persisted in their course. He must say, that Government proceeded with the utmost caution throughout the whole course of these transactions. The Government entreated that the men might be removed from Plymouth. In a conversation which he had with some individuals who possessed influence over them, at which his right hon. friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was present, he entreated them to disperse the men, and not have them all collected at Plymouth. A list was made out of the number of men to be received in different towns. This list was made out according to a statement which Government received of their numbers. Government promised to give every assistance in its power in order to make their dispersed situation as convenient as possible. But dispersion did not suit the object which these individuals had in view. It was subsequently avowed that they were kept at Plymouth for the purpose of inspiring the Portuguese Government with terror. It was impossible for us to permit that state of things to exist. At the very moment when discussions were going on here with respect to the Portuguese troops at Plymouth, Government received intelligence from different parts of Europe that other bodies of troops were collecting at Lubeck, Hamburgh, Bremen, and even in Flanders. At that moment, also, an officer was sent, to Plymouth, who gave out a general order, in which he formally took command of the depot at Plymouth. What was the meaning of this? Did depot mean troops or private individuals? No doubt could be entertained that a body of troops was intended to be designated. When he looked back at these transactions, he was really astonished that he had had the coolness to bear with the conduct of the Marquis Barbacena. He was perfectly aware that it was in the power of Government to have dispersed the body of troops at Plymouth in a legal manner; but he begged to tell their Lordships that he could not have adopted that course without exciting more noise, objection, and opposition, than had been occasioned by the measures actually adopted to show that this country was determined to preserve neutrality. He would put a case to

643
their Lordships. Supposing Don Miguel had sent here to say that a body of troops were collected at Plymouth in order to invade his dominions, he would like to know what he must have done under those circumstances. Was he to say "It is no such thing—there are no troops at Plymouth?" Or was he to say "True, the troops are here, but I will not disperse them, or prevent them from invading your dominions?" Were we to go to war to protect those persons who were doing that which was derogatory from his honour? He really must say that his noble friend opposite had not considered either the difficulties of the case, or the difficulties of the position in which the Government was placed. He was sorry to say, that since that time those persons, by means of subterfuge and passing from one country to another, had succeeded in arriving at Terceira. He hoped that this country would feel no inconvenience from their occupation of the Azores. He must tell their Lordships that if the other Governments of Europe had done their duty in the way in which we had performed ours, Europe would have had a better chance of a permanent peace resulting from recent transactions between Portugal and Brazil, than it possessed at the present moment. Not that our Government entertained an apprehension-of war; but he must say, that the state of things at Terceira was not that which ought to have been and would have been, if the other powers of Europe had done their duty as the Government of this country had done. He had made their Lordships acquainted with his objections to the production of the papers called for by the Motion. The question stood at the present moment. in precisely the same state in which it stood when it last came under their Lordships' consideration, and he hoped their Lordships would not insist upon the production of the papers until Ministers should advise his Majesty to lay them before Parliament.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he still retained his opinion that this country ought to have taken more energetic measures in support of those individuals who had advocated the constitution in Portugal, and that opinion was strengthened by the declaration of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that he would not look with favour upon any arrangement which did not include an amnesty for those individuals.
644
In consequence of the course which Government had pursued, we had lost the friendship, not only of the English party in Portugal, but of the whole country. He thought he had made out a special ground for the production of information, and therefore he would take the sense of the House upon his Motion.
Their Lordships divided,— Content 21; Not Content 52;—Majority 31.